OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 02:14:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rome's jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics  (Read 3591 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« on: January 29, 2012, 10:44:41 PM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2012, 11:31:12 PM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority?  

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic?  

Thanks!
K


Before I comment, I shall beat a 'dead horse.' We Orthodox proclaim that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as we profess in the unadulterated Nicene Creed. Hence, you have to be more 'specific' in your  questions. When you use the term 'Catholic' it appears that you are referring to the Church of Rome, a/k/a the Roman Catholic church.

Back to your questions.

I believe that Eastern Catholics do not like to be called "Roman Catholics" as they are not "Roman Catholics." They profess to be members of self-ruling Churches (i.e. 'sui juris') who submit to the authority of the Pope of Rome. Hence, I would suspect that by merely being Eastern Catholics they are subject to the authority of the Pope and would not object to that obvious fact being so stated.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the various documents of Union with Rome from the 16th and 17th centuries which purport to guarantee the 'Eastern-ness' of the praxis and teachings of the Eastern Catholic churches and the reiteration of them as being 'sui juris' following Vatican 2, their congregants are subject to Roman doctrines and Canon law, among those are the ones regarding divorce and contraception.

Finally, I am not sure what you mean with respect to St. Peter Mohyla, Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia in the mid 17th century. While he was no doubt influenced by Western thought, his Confessions were published in defense of Orthodoxy during a period of great stress caused by the Reformation on the one hand and the Union of Brest on the other. It can be argued that St. Peter sought a methodology to understand the Papacy in terms of the primacy as it may have first functioned in priniciple during the first millennium. He remains a controversial figure for a number of reasons, but it is largely undisputed in scholarly circles that he was a bulwark to prevent the spread of Jesuit influence into Russia herself and to stem the then-growing influence of the Unia at the time of his episcopacy. Not an easy question with a simple answer I am afraid.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 11:31:43 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2012, 09:09:51 AM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

When I read this question, I thought "copy cat!" since I also started a thread on that topic last night.

Then I realized that you actually started your thread about 10 minutes before mine. Boy are my cheeks red.  Grin

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

I believe that Eastern Catholics have a similar process, but I'll leave it for Catholic posters to say how similar.

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K

I don't see how it could be considered "Catholic", given what Catholics dogmatically defined in the 19th century.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2012, 11:13:07 AM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K

1.  Eastern Catholics are NOT Roman Catholics and generally don't like being referred to as such.  Some will make a bigger deal of it than others.  We are, however, *fully* Catholic.

2.  Being fully Catholic means that we are subject to the same laws as Roman Catholics regarding divorce, remarriage, contraception, abortion, etc.

3.  I'm not sure  I understand your question.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2012, 05:39:05 PM »

Eastern Catholics seem to quietly ignore some Roman Catholic teachings....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

"This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics.  Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. 

"Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

The last sentence is a puzzle.  The agreement, so the Eastern Catholics claim, states that they will not be asked to believe anything more than they believed at the time of union.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2012, 06:00:44 PM »

Eastern Catholics seem to quietly ignore some Roman Catholic teachings....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

"This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics.  Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. 

"Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

The last sentence is a puzzle.  The agreement, so the Eastern Catholics claim, states that they will not be asked to believe anything more than they believed at the time of union.

Just to clarify, the above is referring to the Melkites specifically, and not necessarily to all Eastern Catholics.

It also has nothing in particular to do with the OP's questions as I understood them (or not, as the case may be  Wink).
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2012, 06:28:24 PM »

Eastern Catholics seem to quietly ignore some Roman Catholic teachings....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

"This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics.  Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. 

"Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

The last sentence is a puzzle.  The agreement, so the Eastern Catholics claim, states that they will not be asked to believe anything more than they believed at the time of union.

Just to clarify, the above is referring to the Melkites specifically, and not necessarily to all Eastern Catholics
.

The Melkites are the third or fourth largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches.  They are not alone in their attitudes.

You will note that the article speaks of them as "the most disaffected" of the Eastern Rite Catholics.  All share the Melkite position to a degree when push comes to shove.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2012, 06:30:41 PM »



It also has nothing in particular to do with the OP's questions as I understood them (or not, as the case may be 
Wink).

It certainly has to do with Point 2 of the OP.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2012, 06:55:14 PM »

There was also a interview with the then Patriarch(Major Archbishop)  Husar of the UGCC where he stated that the particular beliefs of the RCC such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, et. al. were only valid theological opinions but not required beliefs. It has been a few years since I read the article I will try to find.

Edit: Here is the article. It seems that he says that these beliefs are theological concepts not faith. Whatever that means. He also seems to think that these beliefs are complimentary with the Orthodox Faith. I must disagree.

http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/interview/823/
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 07:06:38 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2012, 07:12:24 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion

http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006D.htm



It is interesting for us Orthodox Christians that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the Church of Rome over the number of Ecumenical Councils and teach that there are only seven. For example, from the official web site of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton (in communion with Rome).

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox

Source  ::  http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

and
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm

Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2012, 08:46:35 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion

http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006D.htm



It is interesting for us Orthodox Christians that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the Church of Rome over the number of Ecumenical Councils and teach that there are only seven. For example, from the official web site of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton (in communion with Rome).

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox

Source  ::  http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

and
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm



That is interesting and you reminded me of that.

I would note that the idea of treating the so-called 'Ecumenical Councils' of the Church of Rome as nothing more than 'general synods' is one of the thoughts that some on the Orthodox side have expressed as well.

The problem with that is that while many of the points of divergence between east and west could be viewed as 'theologoumena' upon which we agree to disagree (as was the case with any number of approaches and issues of the first millennium united Church) Rome has chosen to proclaim them as inviolable dogma and come up with a few new ones to boot. How they could back down from a thousand years of so stating is the biggest problem.

I suspect that just as we anticipate that any agreement by the Orthodox with Rome would lead to some sort of schism within Orthodoxy, the same would occur within the Church of Rome should she come to agreement with us. Self proclaimed 'sedevacantists' would simply proclaim the see of Rome vacant and go on their merry way.
Logged
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2012, 09:07:21 PM »

Quote
"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Great scott!

And Rome no doubt knows this but does nothing--why? 

And why would these odd Eastern Catholics join to Rome, when they believe essentially as Orthodox? 

Be men of principle...none of this duplicity-
K
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2012, 10:06:01 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

I disagree. He didn't actually say it isn't true. He only said that it isn't a dogma and "can not be imposed on anyone".

He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion

That seems more accurate.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2012, 10:09:00 PM »

Quote
"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Great scott!

And Rome no doubt knows this but does nothing--why? 

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Actually, I'm a little surprised that you regard it as a bad thing, given what your profile says.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2012, 10:09:46 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

I disagree. He didn't actually say it isn't true. He only said that it isn't a dogma and "can not be imposed on anyone".

I amend my words ---  if a Catholic prefers not to believe in papal infallibility then it is not truth. But if any Catholic chooses to believe it then it is truth.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 10:10:38 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2012, 10:25:10 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

I disagree. He didn't actually say it isn't true. He only said that it isn't a dogma and "can not be imposed on anyone".

I amend my words ---  if a Catholic prefers not to believe in papal infallibility then it is not truth. But if any Catholic chooses to believe it then it is truth.

No, whether it's true or not isn't changed by people believing it or not believing it.

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?"
- A Man For All Seasons
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2012, 10:29:50 PM »

While I'm at it, this seems like a good quote too ...

Norfolk: I'm not a scholar, as Master Cromwell never tires of pointing out, and frankly I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names... You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us for friendship?
- A Man For All Seasons

Maybe Norfolk had the "uniatism" idea first, and the Catholics just stole it from him. Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2012, 10:40:27 PM »

2.  Being fully Catholic means that we are subject to the same laws as Roman Catholics regarding divorce, remarriage, contraception, abortion, etc.

What does "we" mean in this sentence?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 627


militantsparrow
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2012, 12:22:42 AM »

If I thought it were possible to be Roman Catholic and not accept what it itself states is necessary to be Roman Catholic, I may have stayed. But the documents from the post schism councils state very clearly that one must accept the decrees or be anathema.

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.

I do not and cannot accept universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility--that's why I am becoming Orthodox.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2012, 12:24:21 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 627


militantsparrow
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2012, 12:36:20 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?

Because I am not an ancient Church. I'm just me. I've read the council documents and I cannot accept some of the cannons. I'm a rule follower. If the RCC says I have to accept certain things (which i dont) to be RC then I personally cannot remain in communion.

Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2012, 12:48:02 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?

Because I am not an ancient Church. I'm just me. I've read the council documents and I cannot accept some of the cannons. I'm a rule follower. If the RCC says I have to accept certain things (which i dont) to be RC then I personally cannot remain in communion.


But what if you requested a canonical transfer to the Melkite Catholic Church? Then your beliefs could remain the same as they are now and you would be in agreement with your Church.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 12:53:59 AM by Wyatt » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2012, 08:14:55 AM »

If I thought it were possible to be Roman Catholic and not accept what it itself states is necessary to be Roman Catholic, I may have stayed. But the documents from the post schism councils state very clearly that one must accept the decrees or be anathema.

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.

I do not and cannot accept universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility--that's why I am becoming Orthodox.

Some years ago I thought about this a lot, and the conclusion I came to (for what it's worth) was that the Pope could excommunicate anyone who didn't accept papal infallibility, but that he didn't have to.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2012, 08:15:47 AM »

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 627


militantsparrow
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2012, 10:18:37 AM »

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 627


militantsparrow
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2012, 10:21:59 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?

Because I am not an ancient Church. I'm just me. I've read the council documents and I cannot accept some of the cannons. I'm a rule follower. If the RCC says I have to accept certain things (which i dont) to be RC then I personally cannot remain in communion.


But what if you requested a canonical transfer to the Melkite Catholic Church? Then your beliefs could remain the same as they are now and you would be in agreement with your Church.

I explored this possibility at one point. But I came to the conclusion that I don't want to retain "union" with Rome just for the sake of holding on to what's familiar. Plus, if I were honest with the bishop and told him I wanted an canonical transfer because I reject Vatican I and II, I doubt that he'd allow it.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 976


« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2012, 10:40:22 AM »

Hi,


3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K
A historical question:  please direct me to the primary source in which Metr. Petro Mohyla approved "Rome primacy"?  I read Ukrainian, Russian and Church Slavonic.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2012, 11:11:12 AM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 627


militantsparrow
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2012, 11:39:40 AM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.

I don't get it either. I'd like to hear from some Melkites on this issue.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2012, 11:50:33 AM »

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.

Interesting that you state this as a principle in general. The way a lot of Catholics talk about it, it sounds more like a special property of the pope that he is unable to be in full communion with anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2012, 12:01:55 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.

How can a Melikite in union with the Rome be part of the 'Catholicity of the Church of Rome' when the universal pastorate of the Bishop of Rome and his infallibility with respects to his 'ex cathedra' pronouncements of faith can be questioned and even denied. Rome surely does not view this matter as a mere 'theologoumenon'. Doesn't the entire foundation of Rome's historical position on this matter come crashing down as if built upon sand - applying - take a breath- a logical, scholastically based proof?

I can see, I think, how the Melkites can reconcile this, but I do not see how Rome allows this, if it is in fact the case.

Please, someone from within the Melkite community, please try to explain. Thanks!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 12:03:17 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2012, 12:02:36 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2012, 12:37:37 PM »

Yes, but are dogmas 'all-or-nothing' propositions?  I thought they were.

The Anglicans have agreed to not really hold too tightly to dogmatic principles.  Are you saying the RCC likewise has a less stringent view of dogma?


That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2012, 01:48:14 PM »

Yes, but are dogmas 'all-or-nothing' propositions?  I thought they were.

The Anglicans have agreed to not really hold too tightly to dogmatic principles.  Are you saying the RCC likewise has a less stringent view of dogma?


That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.

If you are saying that, then are acknowledging that the primary impediments to a reunion of east and west are less daunting than they have appeared for 1000 years or so? Or, as is often the case when east and west speak to each other, is it the 'different' way of looking at things and expressing them (going back to the early Fathers of east and west)which keeps us from fully understanding what the other is saying?
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2012, 02:07:45 PM »

It is much easier for me to look at Roman Catholicism as a different religion from Orthodox Christianity than it is to say we are still the same religion with slight variances.  I think there are profound differences that are not entirely appreciated.

Take, for example, the very 'simple' things we have read about Roman Catholicism here on the forum, and how quickly we are told that we don't understand what these things mean when we start to discuss them.  Quickly, it becomes apparent that we do not share the same approaches or even a common vocabulary in terms of meaning, even if the words are the same.

This does not mean that I hate RCs or their church, in fact I have a great deal of respect for them and admire the earnestness of many if not most.  But, I do not confuse them with us or our beliefs or our approach.  To respect them truly means to acknowledge the differences.

In order for there to be some reunion, there will have to be profound changes on both sides: the Orthodox will have to learn a lot more tolerance of different traditions (everyone who isn't a Byzantine has left the building), and the Roman Catholics will have to renounce their theological pronouncements after the schism.  I don't see interest in either side in doing these things, so I really don't even think about it.  They are two different religions.  I don't think RCs need us to be happy, and the same is true of us.


Yes, but are dogmas 'all-or-nothing' propositions?  I thought they were.

The Anglicans have agreed to not really hold too tightly to dogmatic principles.  Are you saying the RCC likewise has a less stringent view of dogma?


That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.

If you are saying that, then are acknowledging that the primary impediments to a reunion of east and west are less daunting than they have appeared for 1000 years or so? Or, as is often the case when east and west speak to each other, is it the 'different' way of looking at things and expressing them (going back to the early Fathers of east and west)which keeps us from fully understanding what the other is saying?
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2012, 02:52:34 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way:  that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.

Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.

If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.

M.
Logged

militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 627


militantsparrow
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2012, 03:54:35 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way:  that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.

Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.

If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.

M.

I think I understand Roman Catholicism pretty well. I think everyone realizes that the Pope is aware of the Melkite position. What we're asking, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, is why does he allow it?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2012, 04:46:41 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way:  that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.

Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.

If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.

M.

I think I understand Roman Catholicism pretty well. I think everyone realizes that the Pope is aware of the Melkite position. What we're asking, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, is why does he allow it?


I really don't think I do understand the Roman Catholic Church all that well. While her scope is 'universal' across the planet, there are times she seems like a huge monolithic giant and other times when she seems like a large co-operative apartment complex with tenants at each other's throats about co-op rules and regulations. Whether she truly is a 'different religion' than Orthodoxy depends, I think, upon the moment.

Like many of us, I am perplexed by seemingly contradictory strands of teaching and 'enforcement' on her part. Some days I lean towards Father Giryus' statement that although we have superficial similarities we are two different religions. Other days,  I lean the other way.

What one means by being a 'different' religion is the kicker though. If you put a Hindu next to a Jew next to an Animist, it is easy to determine that they are all 'different' religions. But put an American Lutheran next to an Episcopalian next to a Methodist next to a Presbyterian next to a.... you get the picture... Are those 'different' 'religions' or are they one religion - trinitarian Christian but different 'sects'?

An argument can be made that the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches are such that are less than the progressive differences among the 'sects' I mentioned in the prior paragraph.

Many here are converts from Protestantism, I suspect that it is easier for you to see Orthodoxy and Protestant denominations as being different 'religions.' Since most Protestants I know clearly see Catholicism as being a very different belief set as compared to any particular Protestant sect, I suspect converts from Protestantism have no problem viewing us as being a totally different 'religion' from the RCC.

Those who left Byzantine Catholicism for Orthodoxy for the most part view themselves as  continuing in Orthodoxy upon the correct path from which their former Church deviated. I know that to be the case with respect to the many individuals I have known over the years who made that journey. However, few, if any of them viewed Eastern Catholicism as being a 'different religion.' I am curious therefore, as to how converts to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism or vice-versa view their former affiliation.

By know you are probably as confused by my post as am I.

Actually that is my point, for when we speak of things like faith, belief and religion we often run into difficulty explaining our points of view within the limitations of our language and most of the time we tend to talk past each other.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2012, 06:03:21 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way

Fortunately, the Catholic posters on this forum constantly remind us of that possibility.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2012, 02:52:32 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2012, 04:14:30 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

But never mind, whatever it is you or anyone else who is not Catholic would like us to call ourselves or not call ourselves, we *do* call our Church the Catholic Church.  I imagine we will continue for some long time to do so.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2012, 05:26:41 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

My apologies, I should have elaborated on that portion of my post. The issue I was talking about isn't that you guys claim to be the Catholic Church; the issue is with Catholics who try to get other people to call you "the Catholic Church". Does that help?

But never mind,

Oh. Too late. 

whatever it is you or anyone else who is not Catholic would like us to call ourselves or not call ourselves, we *do* call our Church the Catholic Church.  I imagine we will continue for some long time to do so.

Yes, I imagine you will too.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2012, 05:28:57 PM »

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now),
...

See my profile, or better yet click on the asterisk.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2012, 05:36:27 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

My apologies, I should have elaborated on that portion of my post. The issue I was talking about isn't that you guys claim to be the Catholic Church; the issue is with Catholics who try to get other people to call you "the Catholic Church". Does that help?


Unfortunately, Peter, it really doesn't help.  Yes, we call our Church the Catholic Church.  We "try to get other people to call [us] the Catholic Church"? But that is what we *are*.  What else would we have others call us? 

As for your religious identity, I've clicked the asterisk, read the post, and it's *still* unclear to me just what you are or with whom you are in communion, if anyone.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2012, 05:54:02 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority?  

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

My apologies, I should have elaborated on that portion of my post. The issue I was talking about isn't that you guys claim to be the Catholic Church; the issue is with Catholics who try to get other people to call you "the Catholic Church". Does that help?


Unfortunately, Peter, it really doesn't help.  Yes, we call our Church the Catholic Church.  We "try to get other people to call [us] the Catholic Church"? But that is what we *are*.  What else would we have others call us?  

As for your religious identity, I've clicked the asterisk, read the post, and it's *still* unclear to me just what you are or with whom you are in communion, if anyone.
It is interesting that other communions are content to call themselves by a different name until they hear us call ourselves the "Catholic Church," then all of a sudden they want that title for themselves. Why do the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches each refer to themselves as the "Orthodox Church" and members of the Anglican Communion call themselves the Church of England, the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, and yet when they hear us call our Church the Catholic Church it grinds their gears? They are perfectly fine using a different title for their Church until they hear us using the word "Catholic" to describe ourselves and our Church.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, I don't see what the problem is. Before the Great Schism, the unified pre-schism Church referred to itself as catholic and orthodox, right? After the Schism, the Eastern Churches began using "Orthodox" as their title and we used "Catholic." That's just the way the terminology evolved. Why, now, is it all of a sudden an issue? I refer to my Church as orthodox with a small "o" to avoid confusion since it is not a part of either the Oriental Orthodox communion or Eastern Orthodox communion. I would never think to gripe to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox to drop the word "Orthodox" from their name, even though I believe my Church to be fully orthodox.

I could see it being a problem if we started wanting people to always call us the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," since the other communions believe themselves to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," but that is not what we're doing. We're simply calling ourselves by the name that has been used for our Church for ages: the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 05:55:57 PM by Wyatt » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2012, 06:31:14 PM »

mmunions are content to call themselves by a different name until they hear us call ourselves the "Catholic Church," then all of a sudden they want that title for themselves. Why do the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches each refer to themselves as the "Orthodox Church" and members of the Anglican Communion call themselves the Church of England, the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, and yet when they hear us call our Church the Catholic Church it grinds their gears? They are perfectly fine using a different title for their Church until they hear us using the word "Catholic" to describe ourselves and our Church.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, I don't see what the problem is. Before the Great Schism, the unified pre-schism Church referred to itself as catholic and orthodox, right? After the Schism, the Eastern Churches began using "Orthodox" as their title and we used "Catholic." That's just the way the terminology evolved. Why, now, is it all of a sudden an issue? I refer to my Church as orthodox with a small "o" to avoid confusion since it is not a part of either the Oriental Orthodox communion or Eastern Orthodox communion. I would never think to gripe to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox to drop the word "Orthodox" from their name, even though I believe my Church to be fully orthodox.

Actually, you've got the history turned around. The Eastern Churches consistently referred to themselves as both "Orthodox" and "Catholic" both before and after the schism--the Western Church was referred to as "Latins", "the West" etc. It was only in Western European languages, which no Orthodox were speaking at the time, that 'Catholic' came to have a particular association with Rome. In the late 19th century, when the Eastern churches began regularly communicating in Western European languages there was a definite attempt to preserve the use of Catholic as it was used in Orthodox old countries. However, given Rome's 1000 year head-start in those languages, most of us have given up the attempt to preserve that real usage as quixotic and simply confusing to those who assume 'Catholic' means 'Rome'. So while I believe it's true that according to the definition of the Fathers, I am a 'Catholic Christian', I don't see much point in saying it to anyone without an extensive knowledge of Church History.

That doesn't make me any more comfortable with using it in a sense I believe to be untrue (i.e., calling the Roman Church catholic). I have the same problem when it comes to referring to my parents' church--they self-identify as "The Church of Christ" and strongly resist any other label as 'non-Bibilical' and therefor counter to their beliefs. But I don't believe their church is "The Church of Christ" and I can't in good conscience say I do. It is good to be polite and not use terms that people find offensive. But there is a reciprocal politeness in not expecting people to use terms they don't believe--otherwise, I expect all 'Roman Catholics' on this board to refer to me in the future by my preferred name "Lord and Master"--it's just polite after all.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #46 on: February 05, 2012, 07:00:31 PM »

mmunions are content to call themselves by a different name until they hear us call ourselves the "Catholic Church," then all of a sudden they want that title for themselves. Why do the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches each refer to themselves as the "Orthodox Church" and members of the Anglican Communion call themselves the Church of England, the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, and yet when they hear us call our Church the Catholic Church it grinds their gears? They are perfectly fine using a different title for their Church until they hear us using the word "Catholic" to describe ourselves and our Church.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, I don't see what the problem is. Before the Great Schism, the unified pre-schism Church referred to itself as catholic and orthodox, right? After the Schism, the Eastern Churches began using "Orthodox" as their title and we used "Catholic." That's just the way the terminology evolved. Why, now, is it all of a sudden an issue? I refer to my Church as orthodox with a small "o" to avoid confusion since it is not a part of either the Oriental Orthodox communion or Eastern Orthodox communion. I would never think to gripe to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox to drop the word "Orthodox" from their name, even though I believe my Church to be fully orthodox.

Actually, you've got the history turned around. The Eastern Churches consistently referred to themselves as both "Orthodox" and "Catholic" both before and after the schism--the Western Church was referred to as "Latins", "the West" etc. It was only in Western European languages, which no Orthodox were speaking at the time, that 'Catholic' came to have a particular association with Rome. In the late 19th century, when the Eastern churches began regularly communicating in Western European languages there was a definite attempt to preserve the use of Catholic as it was used in Orthodox old countries. However, given Rome's 1000 year head-start in those languages, most of us have given up the attempt to preserve that real usage as quixotic and simply confusing to those who assume 'Catholic' means 'Rome'. So while I believe it's true that according to the definition of the Fathers, I am a 'Catholic Christian', I don't see much point in saying it to anyone without an extensive knowledge of Church History.
I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that, before the schism, both East and West referred to themselves both as Catholic and Orthodox (they were the same Church then). After the schism, the Eastern Churches gradually became known as Orthodox (i.e. the Orthodox Church) while the West became known as the Catholic Church. Also, I have a hard time believing that the pre-schism Western Church referred to itself as "the Latins" and "the West."

That doesn't make me any more comfortable with using it in a sense I believe to be untrue (i.e., calling the Roman Church catholic). I have the same problem when it comes to referring to my parents' church--they self-identify as "The Church of Christ" and strongly resist any other label as 'non-Bibilical' and therefor counter to their beliefs. But I don't believe their church is "The Church of Christ" and I can't in good conscience say I do. It is good to be polite and not use terms that people find offensive. But there is a reciprocal politeness in not expecting people to use terms they don't believe--otherwise, I expect all 'Roman Catholics' on this board to refer to me in the future by my preferred name "Lord and Master"--it's just polite after all.
I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name. Calling them by the name they wish to be called in no way is an admission that you believe they deserve the name. There are some Protestant denominations around here that call themselves "the Church of God." Now, if I wanted to nitpick, I would refuse to call them that because obviously I believe my Church is the Church of God, as in it was founded by God. That doesn't make me uncomfortable calling them the "Church of God" since that is what they title themselves. Doesn't mean that I really believe they are the true "Church of God."
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #47 on: February 05, 2012, 07:43:39 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2012, 07:46:26 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2012, 07:57:18 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2012, 07:59:45 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

(Why do I get the feeling that this is a "fair-weather" claim?)

That's great as long as the Pope gets to decided which names are legitimate and which aren't.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 08:09:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2012, 09:01:56 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?
It's related. Lutherans were first called Lutherans by their opponents, and I believe the first Christians were named "Christians" by their opponents. No reason...your comment just made me think of that.

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

(Why do I get the feeling that this is a "fair-weather" claim?)

That's great as long as the Pope gets to decided which names are legitimate and which aren't.
You seem to have become quite snarky towards Catholicism lately, which is pretty strange since up until like a few days ago you were Catholic as well.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2012, 09:10:06 PM »

I refer to what is commonly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" as "The Church of Christ" and, although I consider myself to generally be rather a polite person, I have no intention of ever calling a protestant demonination by that name.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2012, 09:30:21 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?
It's related. Lutherans were first called Lutherans by their opponents, and I believe the first Christians were named "Christians" by their opponents. No reason...your comment just made me think of that.

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

(Why do I get the feeling that this is a "fair-weather" claim?)

That's great as long as the Pope gets to decided which names are legitimate and which aren't.
You seem to have become quite snarky towards Catholicism lately, which is pretty strange since up until like a few days ago you were Catholic as well.

I guess my info on what counts as "snarky towards Catholicism" must be dated.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2012, 10:05:51 PM »

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 11:36:27 PM »

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.
I took your comment about "fair weather claim" and "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate" as snarkiness. You're welcome to refute that if you want. What did you mean by those comments?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #56 on: February 05, 2012, 11:40:39 PM »

I refer to what is commonly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" as "The Church of Christ" and, although I consider myself to generally be rather a polite person, I have no intention of ever calling a protestant demonination by that name.
Really? I have a hard time believing that. So when people ask you what your faith is you say "Church of Christ"? What if you had a family member or a dear friend that belonged to the denomination that calls themselves "the Church of Christ" and someone asked you what church that friend or family member went to? What would you say?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,417


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2012, 11:47:56 PM »

There are at least a couple of Protestant churches which refer to themselves as the Church of Christ, or something very similar. I don't dispute what you want to say about the Orthodox Church, but there are some places where you would have to say different words just to distinguish your church from another church in the same town. That's all.
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/
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #58 on: February 06, 2012, 12:02:49 AM »

I refer to what is commonly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" as "The Church of Christ" and, although I consider myself to generally be rather a polite person, I have no intention of ever calling a protestant demonination by that name.
Really? I have a hard time believing that. So when people ask you what your faith is you say "Church of Christ"? What if you had a family member or a dear friend that belonged to the denomination that calls themselves "the Church of Christ" and someone asked you what church that friend or family member went to? What would you say?

Sorry, Wyatt, I was kind of speaking to the air rather than responding directly to what you have said previously. I hope the below serves to clarify.

Like you and your use of the term "orthodox", I obviously restrict my use of the phrase "Church of Christ" to a context in which it will be properly understood. I know, for example, that you would understand me correctly if I were to say "the practice of witholding the Precious Gifts from children is not a practice which was received by the Church of Christ". Accordingly, I would not hesitate to use the phrase in such a way in a conversation with you, trusting that you would understand me to be speaking in good faith and without any purposeful deprecation of your beliefs.

In response to your first question, I describe myself as an "Orthodox Christian" when I am asked to what church I belong. I do this only out of convenience and to ensure I am understood. I would prefer to say I am in communion with and confess the theology of the Church of Christ, but I am sure doing so would cause unnecessary trouble for all involved.

The other question you put to me is certainly a difficult one to answer. Let me start by saying that there is no way I would adopt holus bolus the phrase "Church of Christ" to describe a protestant denomination simply out of a desire not to offend. Indeed, there is something incredibly presumptuous and offensive about a sect which has been around for all of five minutes laying claim to such a grandiose (and holy!) title. It's almost in the same vein as protestants who ask questions like "are you Christian or Catholic?". So, if you and I were having a discussion about, say, my brother, and his attendance at the protestant church in question, I would certainly add some sort of qualifier when using the phrase "Church of Christ". I might say: "well, he attends the Church of Christ, but you know how I feel about them calling themselves that!", or, perhaps less derisively, "the so-called Church of Christ" (the Eastern Orthodox Church, of course, being the Church of Christ properly-so-called). Would I use such language to my brother's face? To be honest, probably not, though I would feel pretty damn uncomfortable using the phrase "Church of Christ" in reference to his church and would probably feel slightly resentful for being made to do so.

Not sure if all of the above is internally contradictory -- it's just how I feel.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #59 on: February 06, 2012, 12:13:18 AM »

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.
I took your comment about "fair weather claim" and "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate" as snarkiness. You're welcome to refute that if you want. What did you mean by those comments?

I didn't say "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate".
I did say "fair-weather claim?" b/c I'm not sure it is a position that you're going to stick with consistently. But I'm open to being wrong about that.
For example, you're willing to call a certain Protestant denomination "the Church of Christ"; so far, that's consistent.
I guess the real test would come when, e.g., the Church of England decided to change its name to "the English Catholic Church".
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 12:17:19 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #60 on: February 06, 2012, 12:41:45 PM »

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

Be that as it may, I'm still curious as to what else he would have others call the Catholic Church besides "the Catholic Church", the name we have used for well over 1000 years. 
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #61 on: February 06, 2012, 12:44:03 PM »

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.
I took your comment about "fair weather claim" and "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate" as snarkiness. You're welcome to refute that if you want. What did you mean by those comments?

I didn't say "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate".
I did say "fair-weather claim?" b/c I'm not sure it is a position that you're going to stick with consistently. But I'm open to being wrong about that.
For example, you're willing to call a certain Protestant denomination "the Church of Christ"; so far, that's consistent.
I guess the real test would come when, e.g., the Church of England decided to change its name to "the English Catholic Church".
I'd have no problem calling you "the English Catholic Church."
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #62 on: February 06, 2012, 12:48:49 PM »

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

Be that as it may, I'm still curious as to what else he would have others call the Catholic Church besides "the Catholic Church", the name we have used for well over 1000 years. 
I'm sure he would prefer us to call ourselves "the Roman Catholic Church." After all, the terminology "Roman Catholic Church" was coined by Anglicans if I am not mistaken.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,417


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #63 on: February 06, 2012, 01:01:59 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
I'd have no problem calling you "the English Catholic Church."

Me neither. It seems appropriate.
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/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #64 on: February 06, 2012, 01:07:35 PM »

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

Be that as it may, I'm still curious as to what else he would have others call the Catholic Church besides "the Catholic Church", the name we have used for well over 1000 years. 
I'm sure he would prefer us to call ourselves "the Roman Catholic Church." After all, the terminology "Roman Catholic Church" was coined by Anglicans if I am not mistaken.

Problem is.....we are much more than just the "Roman" Catholic Church.  Personally, as an Eastern Catholic, secure in my identity as a Catholic, I'm not personally insulted if someone calls me a Roman Catholic.  After all, I know what I am and am not.  I also don't have a long personal history in the Catholic Church that may have fostered prejudices and preferences about who calls who what.  There are, however, many, many Eastern Catholics who would take exception at being called "Roman" Catholic.  But there's nothing new about that.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,417


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 06, 2012, 01:11:14 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley
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/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #66 on: February 06, 2012, 01:16:39 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

Mine too.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,417


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #67 on: February 06, 2012, 01:28:43 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

I always thought that the verse implied the general population of Antioch started to call them Christians. Something like, "Oh, there goes such-and-such, isn't he one of those Christians?" That was my impression. If I'm wrong, so be it.  Smiley
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/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #68 on: February 06, 2012, 01:36:45 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
I'd have no problem calling you "the English Catholic Church."

Me neither. It seems appropriate.

You're both very kind, but I'm not sure I want to be called "the English Catholic Church." Let's try it for a few days and then see. (Although I think most posters will keep calling me "Peter J" regardless.)

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

So it would seem!
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 01:39:58 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #69 on: February 06, 2012, 01:59:16 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,417


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #70 on: February 06, 2012, 02:01:13 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I was just trying to be diplomatic.  Sad

Aside from rudeness, it's just logistically impossible to make up a plethora of names for everybody. Let them do it. It's their life anyway.
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/
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 06, 2012, 02:30:41 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #72 on: February 06, 2012, 03:04:36 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #73 on: February 06, 2012, 03:16:23 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2012, 03:25:18 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2012, 03:39:24 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

What witega wrote and what you said he said are, actually, two different things.  Close, but different.

This thread is beginning the first stages of entry into the Twilight Zone  Roll Eyes!
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #76 on: February 06, 2012, 03:53:14 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #77 on: February 06, 2012, 04:12:12 PM »

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Personally, I thought he made a good point, at least with regard to those who try to get everyone to call the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church":

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

but I may be a little biased -- see the reason discussion about me between Wyatt and J Michael.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #78 on: February 06, 2012, 04:16:01 PM »

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Personally, I thought he made a good point, at least with regard to those who try to get everyone to call the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church":

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

but I may be a little biased -- see the reason discussion about me between Wyatt and J Michael.

 Huh Huh
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #79 on: February 06, 2012, 04:25:50 PM »

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with these comments, or whether you're just a little obsessed with me; but regardless, I've revealed as much to you as to everyone else. If that isn't good enough for you, then maybe it's time you learn to live with disappointment.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2012, 04:26:32 PM »

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Personally, I thought he made a good point, at least with regard to those who try to get everyone to call the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church":

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

but I may be a little biased -- see the reason recent discussion about me between Wyatt and J Michael.

 Huh Huh

 Typo.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 04:27:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2012, 04:47:38 PM »

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with these comments, or whether you're just a little obsessed with me; but regardless, I've revealed as much to you as to everyone else. If that isn't good enough for you, then maybe it's time you learn to live with disappointment.

Chill out, Peter.  I'm not "trying to accomplish" anything here other than clarity and understanding of where you're coming from.  If that isn't forthcoming, then it really is no big deal to me.  I've lived with "disappointments" far, far greater than not knowing more about *you*--believe me.  And I imagine I will live with others in the future.  If you think I'm even the slightest bit obsessed with you then you're flattering yourself way too much.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 976


« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2012, 04:53:33 PM »

Have you 2 guys thought of taking this discussion out of the public realm and using e-mailing?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


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


« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2012, 05:18:13 PM »

Have you 2 guys thought of taking this discussion out of the public realm and using e-mailing?

Good point!

Don't worry--as far as I'm concerned "this discussion" is over.  If Peter has anything more to say to me about it, he can p.m. me.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2012, 05:33:48 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Or in other words, you pulled it out of thin air. What I said in response to your original post is the most I've ever said about my 'casual conversations' on this board. Feel free to imagine whatever you wish about them.

Quote
Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

And other than condescension and ad hominem, do you have any actual response to the idea that it is rude (indeed, even a bit arrogant) to demand that others conform their word usage to fit your own belief system?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #85 on: February 07, 2012, 11:10:01 AM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

Sigh...winning debate points and winning hearts, minds and souls are two different things. You are taught that in law school and most lawyers learn that over the course of their careers. Same applies to the clergy to which I can attest, since I've always had my feet in, or near, both pools.
Logged
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #86 on: February 08, 2012, 12:50:31 AM »

Sigh...winning debate points and winning hearts, minds and souls are two different things.


Amen! If more of us here in our anonymous cyber world understood this we could make a lot more progress in our discussions.
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
KShaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 244



« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2012, 05:04:54 PM »

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.
Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?

Christians means "Little Christ" and was indeed used as a condescending remark by outsiders.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2012, 05:32:33 PM »

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  Smiley

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Or in other words, you pulled it out of thin air. What I said in response to your original post is the most I've ever said about my 'casual conversations' on this board. Feel free to imagine whatever you wish about them.

Quote
Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

And other than condescension and ad hominem, do you have any actual response to the idea that it is rude (indeed, even a bit arrogant) to demand that others conform their word usage to fit your own belief system?

I have no idea what you're even prattling on about anymore, but I do take exception to being accused of delving into ad hominem. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2012, 07:42:46 PM »

I have no idea what you're even prattling on about anymore, but I do take exception to being accused of delving into ad hominem. 

Quote
If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

A post can be arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic, cute or many other things and still be 100% factually/logically correct, 0% factually/logically correct, or anywhere in between. Your post does not address whether what I said was true or untrue, reasonable or reasonable. It focuses only on (your perception of) the attitude with which I post. This is the essence of ad hominem.

(Pardon me for calling a spade a spade).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2012, 08:02:32 PM »

I have no idea what you're even prattling on about anymore, but I do take exception to being accused of delving into ad hominem. 

Quote
If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

A post can be arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic, cute or many other things and still be 100% factually/logically correct, 0% factually/logically correct, or anywhere in between. Your post does not address whether what I said was true or untrue, reasonable or reasonable. It focuses only on (your perception of) the attitude with which I post. This is the essence of ad hominem.

(Pardon me for calling a spade a spade).

Whatever.  If you really think so, report it to the mods.

Otherwise you're engaging in "ad hominem," too.

Put your money where your fingers are.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2012, 10:21:12 AM »

I was in the middle of writing a rather lengthy response in defense of Schultz regarding the 'ad hominem' charge levied against him since it was my initial comment to witega which apparently set the thread on a downward spiral. However, I accidentally closed the window and 'poof' - my 'superbly written treatise' was lost in cyber-space. Perhaps it is for the best!

Seriously, I don't see any statement made by Schultz which falls into any of the commonly accepted forms of a true 'ad hominem' attack. In my estimation, there is nothing directly related to witega's initial point in Schultz' posts which appears to be abusive, circumstantial, 'tu quoque' or guilt by association with respect to any underlying point witega may have made or in an effort to undermine any assertion he may have made therein.

Without addressing the validity of any point made by witega I observed that life is not an ongoing debate and all discussions are not 'scored' according to debate rules. Schultz merely followed up.

Certainly controlling the discussion is an important rhetorical tool in any discussion, not just within a formal debate (as a PK and an attorney, I learned that 'tactic' early on.) However, not every discussion should be viewed as a 'debate.' (I would go so far as to say that being "arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic (or) cute" rarely carries the day - unless you are engaged in an election year 'debate' on television.)

So perhaps we are just parsing words rather than fundamentally disagreeing about the initial assertion.

Our mods wisely named these threads 'discussion' fora - not 'debate' fora.

From time to time all of us have been guilty of being "arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic (or) cute" when making a point either in the course of life or certainly online. To be called out on that in the setting of a Christian forum hardly seems to be something to get passionately worked up about. Yes, St. Nicholas "got worked up" in Nicea, but those circumstances don't give all of us a 'carte blanche' in every conversation or discussion in which we are engaged. Not everyone with whom you disagree is Arius.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.327 seconds with 119 queries.