OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 11:45:09 PM *
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: Article: Lefebvrians. Reaching an agreement / SSPX agrees to reunite with Rome  (Read 3001 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« on: April 15, 2012, 08:50:41 PM »


For those that are interested...
"Fellay replies. The Society of St. Pius X might be awarded the status of “Personal prelature” by the pope himself
 Andrea Tornielli
Vatican City

 "The Holy See and the Society of St Pius X, founded by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre, might come to an agreement in matter of days, or even hours. The Superior General of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, apparently signed a new version of the doctrinal preamble, which he had been given last September by cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei.
Officially the Vatican is still waiting for Fellay’s reply. On the 16th of March the bishop had been asked to make a final decision. But according to the information gathered by the Vatican expert Jean-Marie Guenois, who works for the French magazine Le Figaro, unofficially negotiations have moved significantly forward and an agreement will soon be reached..."
Full Article: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebviani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-14317/
 
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,658


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2012, 09:07:10 PM »

Well, that'll be an achievement, if it works.
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/
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2012, 12:26:31 AM »

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2012, 08:30:03 AM »

Well, that'll be an achievement, if it works.

Yes, it would be quite remarkable.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2012, 08:32:01 AM »

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.

Since you don't consider the SSPX to be Catholic, I take it that you define Catholic to be only those is full communion with Rome?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,388


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2012, 08:40:54 AM »

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.
if the sspx were not in the catholic church, then these negogiations would be so much easier. the fact that they are is what makes this really, really hard to overcome. they are in the rcc, but yet not 100%, but yet not in schism. just suspended priests, really
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2012, 08:50:07 AM »

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.
if the sspx were not in the catholic church, then these negogiations would be so much easier. the fact that they are is what makes this really, really hard to overcome. they are in the rcc, but yet not 100%, but yet not in schism. just suspended priests, really

I would compare the situation of the SSPX and Rome with, say the relation between Rome and Constantinople in 865 -- or, if you like, the relation between the ROC and ROCOR in 2005. That is to say, not in full communion but still recognizing each other as being part of the Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,497



« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2012, 09:07:41 AM »

Thank you for the link. It's nice to see that the Catholic Church seems to be turning Catholic again. Not that SSPX would define Catholicism but Rome and the Catholic Church in general seem to be valuing their Tradition i.e historical Catholicism again.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 09:08:51 AM by Alpo » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2012, 01:12:35 PM »

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.
if the sspx were not in the catholic church, then these negogiations would be so much easier. the fact that they are is what makes this really, really hard to overcome. they are in the rcc, but yet not 100%, but yet not in schism. just suspended priests, really

I would compare the situation of the SSPX and Rome with, say the relation between Rome and Constantinople in 865 -- or, if you like, the relation between the ROC and ROCOR in 2005. That is to say, not in full communion but still recognizing each other as being part of the Church.
Agreed. I would also argue that if one's diocese is so infected with modernism that all one hears from the pulpit is heresy, it would be perfectly fine to regularly attend and commune in an SSPX chapel.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2012, 12:57:55 AM »

I didn't write what I meant, evidently.  My statement clearly says that SSPX is not Catholic.  That wasn't my goal; rather I just meant to say that SSPX is anything but regular, canonically speaking, and as a consequence I wonder if they will merge with FSSP since the two have essentially the same purpose (except that the FSSP is fully canonical).  Honestly, when I've attempted to look at the status of SSPX, as understood by the Vatican, I am left quite confused.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,388


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2012, 07:42:36 PM »

I didn't write what I meant, evidently.  My statement clearly says that SSPX is not Catholic.  That wasn't my goal; rather I just meant to say that SSPX is anything but regular, canonically speaking, and as a consequence I wonder if they will merge with FSSP since the two have essentially the same purpose (except that the FSSP is fully canonical).  Honestly, when I've attempted to look at the status of SSPX, as understood by the Vatican, I am left quite confused.
it's really confusing, to be honest. i like the ROCOR-MP analogy, it seems to be the best one that has been offered, and what I can think of myself

And, i dont think the two will merge. From what i know from reading(and know, i cant back this up, so take my words with a grain of salt), some people in the SSPX view the FSSP as "selling out" so to speak, because they just went along with Rome in the beginning, and left the SSPX when it happened.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2012, 09:01:11 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/for-record-latest-tornielli-fellays.html
Quote
Lefebvrists: the positive response has arrived
17.09.2012 (1900 GMT - 2100 Rome)

The Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X has signed the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Holy See, even if with some slight modifications

ANDREA TORNIELLI
CITTÀ DEL VATICANO

The response of the Society of Saint Pius X has arrived in the Vatican and it is positive: according to the informal information gathered by Vatican Insider, Bishop Bernard Fellay would have signed the doctrinal preamble that the Holy See had proposed last September as a condition to reach full communion and canonical regularization.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,658


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2012, 09:02:28 PM »

Thanks be to God.
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/
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2012, 09:51:23 PM »

well all I have to say is the Pope better sleep with one eye open  Wink these guys won't have to much of a problem doing away with his half Germen/ Jewish butt.
Logged
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2012, 10:31:07 PM »

This is just going to cause a schism within the SSPX itself I'm afraid. Unless there were some serious changes to the doctrinal preamble I expect Bishop Williamson may not accept it and will take a portion of the Society with him.
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2012, 10:33:18 PM »

Kudos to the Pope for going after his "lost" sheep... police
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2012, 02:00:15 AM »

It's interesting that one of Archbishop Lefebvre's demands during the 1988 negotiations is just what Benedict XVI gave us in 2007: the definitive liberation of the traditional Roman rite for all priests and bishops. In 1988 that demand was refused. In other words, he didn't want traditional Catholicism to be stuck in a ghetto. As a general principle, he didn't want to make significant compromises for regularization, confident that Rome would eventually move back in the traditional direction as the revolutionaries started to retire/die off.

And wasn't he right! It doesn't seem like they will have to give up anything now. And good on that. What heresy did they ever espouse? They never should have been cast out in the first place, back in the 1970s.

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2012, 03:40:40 AM »

It's interesting that one of Archbishop Lefebvre's demands during the 1988 negotiations is just what Benedict XVI gave us in 2007: the definitive liberation of the traditional Roman rite for all priests and bishops. In 1988 that demand was refused. In other words, he didn't want traditional Catholicism to be stuck in a ghetto. As a general principle, he didn't want to make significant compromises for regularization, confident that Rome would eventually move back in the traditional direction as the revolutionaries started to retire/die off.

And wasn't he right! It doesn't seem like they will have to give up anything now. And good on that. What heresy did they ever espouse? They never should have been cast out in the first place, back in the 1970s.


However, the Traditionalists within the Roman Church take a hard line toward ecumenism.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2012, 09:42:33 AM »

Praise God!!! As soon as this situation is resovled, I will become a regular parishioner at the local SSPX chapel. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2012, 10:02:44 AM »

It's interesting that one of Archbishop Lefebvre's demands during the 1988 negotiations is just what Benedict XVI gave us in 2007: the definitive liberation of the traditional Roman rite for all priests and bishops. In 1988 that demand was refused. In other words, he didn't want traditional Catholicism to be stuck in a ghetto. As a general principle, he didn't want to make significant compromises for regularization, confident that Rome would eventually move back in the traditional direction as the revolutionaries started to retire/die off.

And wasn't he right! It doesn't seem like they will have to give up anything now. And good on that. What heresy did they ever espouse? They never should have been cast out in the first place, back in the 1970s.


However, the Traditionalists within the Roman Church take a hard line toward ecumenism.

They use the same dictionary with regard to this term as to our Orthodox hard-liners. In other words, " Sure, we will talk to you, here are the terms of surrender for you to sign. Thank you."
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2012, 10:19:53 AM »

I didn't write what I meant, evidently.  My statement clearly says that SSPX is not Catholic.  That wasn't my goal; rather I just meant to say that SSPX is anything but regular, canonically speaking, and as a consequence I wonder if they will merge with FSSP since the two have essentially the same purpose (except that the FSSP is fully canonical).  Honestly, when I've attempted to look at the status of SSPX, as understood by the Vatican, I am left quite confused.
it's really confusing, to be honest.

That it is.

One thing to keep in mind is that there's a strong tendency to sharply divide everyone into 2 categories: those who are in full communion with Rome, and those who aren't. (Just consider that the Catholic Answers Forum has a section called "Non-Catholic Religions".  Shocked)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2012, 11:51:30 AM »

Of course, with the SSPX it is a matter of paperwork. All the SSPX Masses I've ever been to include the local RC bishop and Pope Benedict in the Canon (equivalent to the diptychs, in Byzantine terms).  Clearly an internal church matter here, which is why this is taking place under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (the organ that deals with the EO and OO and Western schismatic bodies like the Anglicans and Old Catholics).
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2012, 11:55:42 AM »

Of course, with the SSPX it is a matter of paperwork. All the SSPX Masses I've ever been to include the local RC bishop and Pope Benedict in the Canon (equivalent to the diptychs, in Byzantine terms).  Clearly an internal church matter here, which is why this is taking place under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (the organ that deals with the EO and OO and Western schismatic bodies like the Anglicans and Old Catholics).
Absolutely. I agree. Given the facts, anyone who argues that the SSPX is not Catholic, doesn't know what he is talking about.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2012, 01:13:25 PM »

So does that mean that SSPX recinds all of its arguments against Vat II? Or will they just be "Contentious, yet loyal"?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2012, 01:50:46 PM »

So does that mean that SSPX recinds all of its arguments against Vat II? Or will they just be "Contentious, yet loyal"?

PP
VII is not a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council. Even the Pope recognizes some room for discussion and interpretation with regard to this council.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2012, 01:56:00 PM »

So does that mean that SSPX recinds all of its arguments against Vat II? Or will they just be "Contentious, yet loyal"?

PP
VII is not a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council. Even the Pope recognizes some room for discussion and interpretation with regard to this council.

I do have to say, that 'youse guys' confuse me with your lingo from time to time......?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2012, 01:59:23 PM »

^
Haha. VII declared no dogmas. It merely tried to explain the faith in modern terms. We are free to argue about how successfully it did so. I think it was fine for the most part. Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 02:00:46 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2012, 02:48:44 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2012, 03:12:16 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

Keep in mind that the society was in full communion with Rome from its founding in 1970 until 1988.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2012, 03:18:20 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2012, 03:22:27 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2012, 03:24:32 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2012, 03:26:12 PM »

Quote
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment
So would that assent have an asterisk beside it then?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2012, 03:40:49 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2012, 03:49:33 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.
So you say.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 03:51:59 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2012, 03:51:39 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2012, 03:53:21 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2012, 03:53:37 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2012, 03:54:07 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP
For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2012, 03:54:34 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.
So you say.


But those issues come from within different autocephalous Churches and are not reflective of dogma per se. They represent strains of somewhat opposing 'theological opinion.' After all, 'it depends' is one of our favorite answers as opposed to Rome's 'it is so. (...well...maybe it is so...)'
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2012, 03:56:19 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP
For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

ah - Christ's Vicar on Earth? You know we have had a problem with that in the east since about the 9th century or so...maybe even a bit before that...
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2012, 03:56:48 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.
So you say.


But those issues come from within different autocephalous Churches and are not reflective of dogma per se. They represent strains of somewhat opposing 'theological opinion.' After all, 'it depends' is one of our favorite answers as opposed to Rome's 'it is so. (...well...maybe it is so...)'
I'm sorry but this argument does not carry much weight when it comes from an Eastern Orthodox Christian whose church teaches that contradictions are just fine and dandy in theology, and calls them "mysteries".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2012, 03:57:36 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP
For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

ah - Christ's Vicar on Earth? You know we have had a problem with that in the east since about the 9th century or so...maybe even a bit before that...
No, I said Christ. But, yes His vicar is an icon of Christ.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2012, 03:59:10 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP
For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.
*sigh* you know what Im referring to.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2012, 04:00:18 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2012, 04:01:39 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
You are equivicating between dogmatic teaching and pastoral decisions.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2012, 04:04:03 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.
So you say.


But those issues come from within different autocephalous Churches and are not reflective of dogma per se. They represent strains of somewhat opposing 'theological opinion.' After all, 'it depends' is one of our favorite answers as opposed to Rome's 'it is so. (...well...maybe it is so...)'
I'm sorry but this argument does not carry much weight when it comes from an Eastern Orthodox Christian whose church teaches that contradictions are just fine and dandy in theology, and calls them "mysteries".

And a Church that is so bent on 'proving' that which is indeed a mystery when the constraints of logic and philosophy fail should criticize the East? After all Scripture itself tells us that it is upon Faith that we are to accept what we are given and that without Faith, we are nothing. Explain the 'canon' lawyers charging ridiculous fees to the faithful to advance their sanctification cases through the Vatican bureaucracy? Why must all be codifed and 'explained' when much is inexplicable to us in our current state?
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2012, 04:05:05 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
You are equivicating between dogmatic teaching and pastoral decisions.

The argument is circular. My head is spinning ....where is a map when you need one!  Smiley

The answer is clear - it is the one Bishop Takach and others gave to their flocks - submit or else. We all knew what the 'or else' meant.

I try to be sanguine about the relationship between east and west and look for convergence in our beliefs, but this little exchange does point out the real problem which divides us - it isn't Aquinas, it isn't the IC, it isn't the nature of Grace...it is the Papacy, the Papacy and the Papacy in that order.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 04:07:28 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2012, 04:06:44 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
You are equivicating between dogmatic teaching and pastoral decisions.

The argument is circular. My head is spinning ....where is a map when you need one!  Smiley
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2012, 04:09:06 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
You are equivicating between dogmatic teaching and pastoral decisions.

The argument is circular. My head is spinning ....where is a map when you need one!  Smiley
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.

Indeed, which is why my Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters have developed their concept of being 'Orthodox in Union with Rome' so that when Rome breaks the deal at some future date, they can save face and 'come home.' Of course, neither west nor east likes that argument - it is theirs and theirs alone - but one can see why they developed it.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2012, 04:10:25 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
You are equivicating between dogmatic teaching and pastoral decisions.

The argument is circular. My head is spinning ....where is a map when you need one!  Smiley
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.

Indeed, which is why my Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters have developed their concept of being 'Orthodox in Union with Rome' so that when Rome breaks the deal at some future date, they can save face and 'come home.' Of course, neither west nor east likes that argument - it is theirs and theirs alone - but one can see why they developed it.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2012, 04:10:43 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
So you mean to tell me that if say, ROCOR did not accept converts from protestantism with Chrismation and Antioch does, that I, as a Chrismated Orthodox could not commune in a ROCOR Church? Or does each canonical Church accept and respect the decisions of another church? Should I use the OCA as an example?

Its canonicity is considered suspect, but the faithful are not considered suspect Smiley

Nor I dont really know of a Church that has a differing view on Holy Communion that is so radically different from another and they are still in communion. Of course I could be wrong, but I've not heard of it.

Quote
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.
Absolutely there is a difference. But the problem is, with the stroke of a pen the definition can change and nobody can question it.

Quote
'Orthodox in Union with Rome'
Whatever makes them sleep better at night, I suppose.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2012, 04:11:36 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?
If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....
You are equivicating between dogmatic teaching and pastoral decisions.

The argument is circular. My head is spinning ....where is a map when you need one!  Smiley
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.

Indeed, which is why my Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters have developed their concept of being 'Orthodox in Union with Rome' so that when Rome breaks the deal at some future date, they can save face and 'come home.' Of course, neither west nor east likes that argument - it is theirs and theirs alone - but one can see why they developed it.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over.

I wouldn't say 'everything'.... Wink
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2012, 04:11:53 PM »

Quote
Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?
So you mean to tell me that if say, ROCOR did not accept converts from protestantism with Chrismation and Antioch does, that I, as a Chrismated Orthodox could not commune in a ROCOR Church? Or does each canonical Church accept and respect the decisions of another church? Should I use the OCA as an example?

Its canonicity is considered suspect, but the faithful are not considered suspect Smiley

Nor I dont really know of a Church that has a differing view on Holy Communion that is so radically different from another and they are still in communion. Of course I could be wrong, but I've not heard of it.

Quote
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.
Absolutely there is a difference. But the problem is, with the stroke of a pen the definition can change and nobody can question it.

Quote
'Orthodox in Union with Rome'
Whatever makes them sleep better at night, I suppose.....

PP

My understanding is that while the various canonical Orthodox churches may differ as to receipt of converts, re-ordaining clergy etc... that they accept the decisions of their 'brother' canonical Bishops. So if your Bishop permitted conversion without re-baptism or allowed a BCC priest the privilege of the clergy by profession of faith and by vesting rather that by a separate ordination and laying of hands,  a Bishop with a different discipline for their internal Diocesan decisions would accept the validity of this none the less. Those who do not may be in some of the non-canonical Churches out there.

As to communing, we are all in relative consensus.

I hope this clear that up for you!
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 04:15:42 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2012, 04:16:08 PM »

Haha. VII declared no dogmas.
According to Dignitatis Humanae, §2: "The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom..."  But the following statement was condemned in the past:  "Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man..." (Pius IX, Quanta Cura). The post Vatican II Church follows Dignitatis Humanae, whereas the SSPX teaches the contrary according to Quanta Cura.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2012, 04:18:32 PM »

Haha. VII declared no dogmas.
According to Dignitatis Humanae, §2: "The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom..."  But the following statement was condemned in the past:  "Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man..." (Pius IX, Quanta Cura). The post Vatican II Church follows Dignitatis Humanae, whereas the SSPX teaches the contrary according to Quanta Cura.
Interesting idea, but the Popes who have commented on VII have said that it was not dogmatic.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2012, 04:20:31 PM »

Quote
My understanding is that while the various canonical Orthodox churches may differ as to receipt of converts, re-ordaining clergy etc... that they accept the decisions of their 'brother' canonical Bishops. So if your Bishop permitted conversion without re-baptism or allowed a BCC priest the privilege of the clergy by profession of faith and by vesting rather that by a separate ordination and laying of hands,  a Bishop with a different discipline for their internal Diocesan decisions would accept the validity of this none the less. Those who do not may be in some of the non-canonical Churches out there.

As to communing, we are all in relative consensus.

I hope this clear that up for you!
No, I understand that, it was more of a "you mean to tell me" comment for papist.

The difference I was making is that the Pope, with a swipe of his pen can change the definition of pastoral and dogmatic decisions.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2012, 04:24:16 PM »

... We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.
Does that mean that the Pope can espouse heresy when speaking as a private theologian? But who is to determine when he speaks as a private theologian? Say for example, Quanta Cura versus Dignitatis Humanae? Should Catholics follow the Pope or what some theologian says?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2012, 04:28:28 PM »

Quote
VII declared no dogmas
I think that was the problem.

Quote
Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that
Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP
I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.
That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP
One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.
So you say.

No, so say you.  You are basically saying, "Not everything that the Pope says is infallible...except that it is."
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2012, 04:31:51 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2012, 04:48:46 PM »

Quote
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.
Absolutely there is a difference. But the problem is, with the stroke of a pen the definition can change and nobody can question it.

I don't think the statement in question ("the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallible statement") should be understood as absolutely ruling out the possibility of dissent, no matter what.

It's like if I said "The government has legitimate authority", that doesn't rule out an American Revolution for extreme circumstances.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2012, 04:53:00 PM »

Quote
No less circular and convoluted than Byzantine theology. But I know you can see the difference between pastoral decisions and universal dogmatic teachings.
Absolutely there is a difference. But the problem is, with the stroke of a pen the definition can change and nobody can question it.

I don't think the statement in question ("the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallible statement") should be understood as absolutely ruling out the possibility of dissent, no matter what.

It's like if I said "The government has legitimate authority", that doesn't rule out an American Revolution for extreme circumstances.
Oh you're totally correct. However, what I was saying is that the definition of private to dogmatic can be changed pretty quick.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
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 #62 on: April 19, 2012, 05:06:54 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP

I don't think that's saying that Honorius was not a heretic, but rather it's how Rome reconciles Honorius's condemnation with their modern teachings--acting as a private theologian, Honorius was a heretic (and eventually condemned as such) and so the Christians at the time could validly disagree with him and the issue of 'ex cathedra infallibility' was not implicated.

At least I think that's how the argument goes.
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2012, 05:08:59 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP

I don't think that's saying that Honorius was not a heretic, but rather it's how Rome reconciles Honorius's condemnation with their modern teachings--acting as a private theologian, Honorius was a heretic (and eventually condemned as such) and so the Christians at the time could validly disagree with him and the issue of 'ex cathedra infallibility' was not implicated.

At least I think that's how the argument goes.
I could be a prick and say "thats because ex cathedra wasn't invented yet" but I digress  laugh

The Christians didn't just disagree with him, they anathematized him. So It confuses me in light of the private theologian/official teaching thing.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2012, 06:24:09 PM »

Quote
'Orthodox in Union with Rome'
Whatever makes them sleep better at night, I suppose.....

PP

I've heard the phrase "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" many times, but this post I read earlier today caught my attention because it's different from the usual understanding of that phrase:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Originally Posted by Vico  
Some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox.
That's what I call stating the obvious! Buddhists, for example, are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and certainly hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox. I guess you meant to be a little more specific than just "some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic".
No, because I did not want to say everybody, and some members of Orthodoxy, for example, personally consider themselves in full communion because it is morally impossible for them to be in a Catholic Church due to politics.

(emphasis added)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9200337#post9200337
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 06:26:48 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2012, 08:48:47 PM »

Quote
'Orthodox in Union with Rome'
Whatever makes them sleep better at night, I suppose.....

PP

I've heard the phrase "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" many times, but this post I read earlier today caught my attention because it's different from the usual understanding of that phrase:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Originally Posted by Vico  
Some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox.
That's what I call stating the obvious! Buddhists, for example, are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and certainly hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox. I guess you meant to be a little more specific than just "some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic".
No, because I did not want to say everybody, and some members of Orthodoxy, for example, personally consider themselves in full communion because it is morally impossible for them to be in a Catholic Church due to politics.

(emphasis added)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9200337#post9200337


You should note that it seems that line is from a discussion about Romania and the politics that is being referred to is Romanian politics. I do have to say when I read some of the Latin rite folks on that site pontificating about he Eastern Catholic churches I want to throw up - its the same jingoistic crap that was common to the ears of my grandparents' generation.

Frankly if we Orthodox treated our Eastern Catholic friends with a bit more respect, perhaps more of them would realize the untenable position that they are in with respect to Rome - maybe not with the Pope personally, certainly not his predecessor for that matter, but with the rank and file and the higher ups in the Vatican.

Of course the lack of respect that many 'hyper' Orthodox showed to the Bishops and priests of ACROD and the priests of the UOC who converted in the 1930's and 1940's, which in some circles continues to the present day, does give them pause not to trust us either.

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2012, 09:00:04 PM »

Quote
'Orthodox in Union with Rome'
Whatever makes them sleep better at night, I suppose.....

PP

I've heard the phrase "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" many times, but this post I read earlier today caught my attention because it's different from the usual understanding of that phrase:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Originally Posted by Vico  
Some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox.
That's what I call stating the obvious! Buddhists, for example, are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and certainly hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox. I guess you meant to be a little more specific than just "some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic".
No, because I did not want to say everybody, and some members of Orthodoxy, for example, personally consider themselves in full communion because it is morally impossible for them to be in a Catholic Church due to politics.

(emphasis added)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9200337#post9200337


You should note that it seems that line is from a discussion about Romania and the politics that is being referred to is Romanian politics. I do have to say when I read some of the Latin rite folks on that site pontificating about he Eastern Catholic churches I want to throw up - its the same jingoistic crap that was common to the ears of my grandparents' generation.

I haven't known Vico very long, but from reading many of his posts recently I'm inclined to say that he is very learned, but more often than not I disagree with his opinions/attitude.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2012, 01:29:18 PM »

... We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.
Does that mean that the Pope can espouse heresy when speaking as a private theologian? But who is to determine when he speaks as a private theologian? Say for example, Quanta Cura versus Dignitatis Humanae? Should Catholics follow the Pope or what some theologian says?
A document released by the magesterium is not a matter of private theology. That should be pretty clear.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #68 on: April 23, 2012, 01:30:43 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 23, 2012, 01:40:10 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #70 on: April 23, 2012, 01:42:32 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP
Because quite frankly he may have been a heretic. Or, he fails severly in duty as Pope to protect the Orthodox faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #71 on: April 23, 2012, 01:42:51 PM »

Does this obviously pointless arguing have to infect every thread about the RCC?

All I know is that every SSPXer I know (not many) are great people. And that this city would be worse off if it had not been for the RCC.

Glad to see there is some sorta unity being found.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 23, 2012, 01:46:01 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP
Because quite frankly he may have been a heretic. Or, he fails severly in duty as Pope to protect the Orthodox faith.
Understood. Thanks for your input Smiley I appreciate it.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #73 on: April 23, 2012, 06:11:48 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP

I support the "as a private theologian" distinction; but I think that saying that private theology doesn't matter is going to far.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #74 on: April 23, 2012, 06:15:24 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP

I support the "as a private theologian" distinction; but I think that saying that private theology doesn't matter is going to far.
It matters, but not in the sense that we are bound to it like we are bound to magisterial teachings.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 06:15:50 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 24, 2012, 10:23:16 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP

I support the "as a private theologian" distinction; but I think that saying that private theology doesn't matter is going to far.
It matters, but not in the sense that we are bound to it like we are bound to magisterial teachings.
That makes sense.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #76 on: April 24, 2012, 10:43:52 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP

I support the "as a private theologian" distinction; but I think that saying that private theology doesn't matter is going to far.
It matters, but not in the sense that we are bound to it like we are bound to magisterial teachings.
That makes sense.

PP

Does this mean you're withdrawing your question 'why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?'?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 24, 2012, 10:46:46 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.
Your point is taken, and I agree. I would like your opinion on this however:
If he did not try to push the idea on the Church, why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?

PP

I support the "as a private theologian" distinction; but I think that saying that private theology doesn't matter is going to far.
It matters, but not in the sense that we are bound to it like we are bound to magisterial teachings.
That makes sense.

PP

Does this mean you're withdrawing your question 'why was he anathematized if "private theology" did/does not matter?'?
No, Im not really withdrawing it, I just see that it does not matter after the above was explained to me.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 24, 2012, 10:47:35 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not.

So you're saying it's a "mystery"? Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #79 on: April 24, 2012, 10:55:14 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not.

So you're saying it's a "mystery"? Wink
No. I am saying that I was not around at the time to evaluate the situation.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ThePilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #80 on: April 24, 2012, 11:18:39 AM »

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over.

I doubt Catholicism requires you to be impolite.  Is that how you behave as a guest in someone else's house?

In Christ,
Fr. John
Logged
ThePilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2012, 11:42:27 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.

He was condemned for teaching heresy, not for failure to teach.  The condemnation was confirmed by another pope.  Wouldn't his status as a heretic be something not open for debate in the Catholic Church?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2012, 11:52:32 AM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.

He was condemned for teaching heresy, not for failure to teach.  The condemnation was confirmed by another pope.  Wouldn't his status as a heretic be something not open for debate in the Catholic Church?
From what I have been told, the term "heretic" had a widern range of meaning then than it does now. So was Pope Honorius a heretic in the modern sense of the word? I don't know.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2012, 11:54:22 AM »

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over.

I doubt Catholicism requires you to be impolite.  Is that how you behave as a guest in someone else's house?

In Christ,
Fr. John
This is not about being impolite. It is a genuine criticism, and general problem I see in Eastern theology. If I agreed with the Eastern Orthodox approach to theology, then I'd be Eastern Orthodox. But then if we were all Eastern Orthodox, then why a subforum for Catholic-Orthodox discussion?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2012, 12:02:53 PM »

Quote
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over
I dont think it was rude either. However, the reverse is a problem I have with Western Theology. Everything has to be explained and pigeon-holed, and starts to sound really silly. I do however see how you can think that Papist. I thought the same thing when I started looking into Orthodoxy.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2012, 01:42:53 PM »

Quote
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over
I dont think it was rude either. However, the reverse is a problem I have with Western Theology. Everything has to be explained and pigeon-holed, and starts to sound really silly. I do however see how you can think that Papist. I thought the same thing when I started looking into Orthodoxy.

PP
And I understand why you think what you think about Latin theology. Smiley We do like to analyze things.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #86 on: April 24, 2012, 01:43:47 PM »

Quote
We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian
So Pope Honorius wasn't a heretic then as this was his private belief? I dont recall monotheletism being declared as dogma from the papal throne........

PP
I don't know if he was a heretic or not. What I do know is that he never declared heresy as the formal teaching of the Church for the entire Church to accept.

He was condemned for teaching heresy, not for failure to teach.  The condemnation was confirmed by another pope.  Wouldn't his status as a heretic be something not open for debate in the Catholic Church?
I don't know of any time in which he specifically and officially taught heresy.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #87 on: April 24, 2012, 01:56:06 PM »

Quote
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over
I dont think it was rude either. However, the reverse is a problem I have with Western Theology. Everything has to be explained and pigeon-holed, and starts to sound really silly. I do however see how you can think that Papist. I thought the same thing when I started looking into Orthodoxy.

PP
And I understand why you think what you think about Latin theology. Smiley We do like to analyze things.
Indeed yall do. I guess my biggest problem is really trying to put things of God in human logic. Putting the infinite into finite terms is kind of silly.
PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #88 on: April 24, 2012, 02:12:09 PM »

Quote
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox theology specifically. Everything that is a contradiction is just given the label "mystery" and glossed over
I dont think it was rude either. However, the reverse is a problem I have with Western Theology. Everything has to be explained and pigeon-holed, and starts to sound really silly. I do however see how you can think that Papist. I thought the same thing when I started looking into Orthodoxy.

PP
And I understand why you think what you think about Latin theology. Smiley We do like to analyze things.
Indeed yall do. I guess my biggest problem is really trying to put things of God in human logic. Putting the infinite into finite terms is kind of silly.
PP
I would agree with you if that were what we did. I can understand why you might think that we do. The late scholastics such as scotus dragged God down to our level of being. They made him one being among many, albeit the greatest and most powerful.
However, this is not what Aquinas did. Aquinas argues that God is not "a being" at all, but being itself. Our minds cannot reach the essence of God, because he is not one of the class beings to which belong. In fact, he is not in any class at all. That's why Aquinas argues that we must speak of God through negations or analogy. But we have no literal language that we can positively apply to God.
That being said, on certain points of sacramental theology, I can see why you would think that we are overly analytical. I actually think that Byzantine Catholicism and Latin Catholicism help balance eachother out on this point.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #89 on: April 24, 2012, 08:48:58 PM »

I agree that East and West can act as checks on each other in this way.

This kind of reason vs. mystery thing has always existed in the Church, it goes back to Antioch vs. Alexandria.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,658


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #90 on: April 24, 2012, 08:49:49 PM »

Funny thing: today, I just picked up a book on the SSPX.
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/
Tags: SSPX 
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 0.325 seconds with 117 queries.