OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 06:33:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Article: Lefebvrians. Reaching an agreement / SSPX agrees to reunite with Rome  (Read 3012 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 8,034


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: 8,034


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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 8,034


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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,236


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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


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: 8,034


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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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: 6,462


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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« 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: 8,034


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: 6,049



« 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 16,350



« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,236


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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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
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 0.204 seconds with 71 queries.