OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 07:33:04 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why  (Read 10884 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #180 on: April 26, 2012, 03:26:12 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?
Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one.  The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate.
You know very well that the Latin Church teaches that Christ is present in the Church, unless you didn't really get a masters degree in theology.
All the more reason to avoid terms that state the opposite.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #181 on: April 26, 2012, 03:27:35 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,228


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #182 on: April 26, 2012, 03:28:16 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
So, since the Easter Orthodox Church teaches that the Pope is a schismatic.......
I did not know that that was an article of faith in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Certainly it is a common opinion, but an article of faith.  Interesting.  Grin
Whatever makes you sleep better at night I suppose.....

Quote
Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one.  The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate
Vicar of Christ has always seemed a bit haughty.

Quote
u know very well that the Latin Church teaches that Christ is present in the Church, unless you didn't really get a masters degree in theology
True, but appearances are everything.

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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #183 on: April 26, 2012, 03:39:26 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #184 on: April 26, 2012, 03:42:22 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.

Gotta start somewhere, eh?  laugh laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #185 on: April 26, 2012, 04:37:23 PM »

Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #186 on: April 26, 2012, 04:49:16 PM »

Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?

He will be returning in His resurrected body, no?  The one with the wounds that St. Thomas put his fingers into, no?  "He will come again in glory (His resurrected body?) to judge the living and the dead."

I'm sure someone more theologically adept can put this better or fill in any gaps I've left.

So....if He is never absent from His body the Church, wouldn't that mean "in spirit", as in the Holy Spirit?  Or, in the Eucharist, which is obviously a different "body" than His resurrected (glorified?) body, no?  If so, then He is not, in a manner of speaking, here physically.  If that's the case, there's no contradiction with the concept of the Pope being His "substitute" here on Earth.  Or am I just talkin' nonsense again?

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that Christ has "different" bodies, or more than one body.  Actually, I'm not sure *what* I mean, now.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 05:11:23 PM by J Michael » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #187 on: April 26, 2012, 05:13:42 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #188 on: April 26, 2012, 05:15:22 PM »

Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?

Because He said that He would... Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #189 on: April 26, 2012, 05:21:55 PM »

Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?

Because He said that He would... Wink

 laugh  There *is* that, isn't there?  Good answer!
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #190 on: April 26, 2012, 06:29:39 PM »

This "vicar" language again? Funny how certain topics reoccur everywhere on the internet...

While I can't and won't make a guess at how well Apotheoun sleeps at night, I think that there is something to be said for the point of view that one is in communion with their Patriarch, without necessarily being in lock-step agreement with every decision made by every other church or bishop. Things like the differences in canon between the Ethiopians and the Copts, for instance, don't seem to keep either church up at night. Granted, there is a vast difference here in that we don't have the Ethiopians telling the rest of the communion that they must therefore add books to their canons or risk their eternal souls (or whatever other analogy you can think of that is analogous to Rome dictating to its "eastern lung"), but still...even though I don't understand how the Melkites do it, I can very much relate to the reaction of "well, that's Rome's POV, ours is ____". Maybe that's because I felt that way more and more in my process of de-conversion from the RCC. I guess not everybody is so willing to leave, but it's not like the Melkites are the first to tell Rome off (to some degree). The Maronites, of all people, did so too when Rome sent Papal legates who attempted to enforce Roman custom on them, and the Spanish did the same when the same situation played itself out regarding the Mozarabic vs. standard Roman liturgy. Neither groups were particularly successful in the long run, but there does seem to be a precedent here (and not just among Easterners, as the Maronites are Orientals and the Mozarabs Westerners).

Would any of you Catholic posters care to speculate as to the Catholic standing of the Maronites or the Spanish?
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #191 on: April 26, 2012, 06:46:20 PM »

There's a Maronite Catholic parish in Tampa. Guess they're not quite as ticked off at the Pope as some would like them to be.
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/
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #192 on: April 26, 2012, 06:48:25 PM »

 Huh

I don't understand what you're getting at, Biro.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #193 on: April 26, 2012, 06:56:14 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking.  As to your muddled assertion, there is not the slightest bit of hyperbole and eisogesis in what Apotheoun wrote (or writes).  If only your posts could resemble those of your coreligionist....
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #194 on: April 26, 2012, 06:58:00 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #195 on: April 26, 2012, 07:02:13 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking. 

Apotheoun's tortured reasoning in favor of continued communion with Rome is anything but clear.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #196 on: April 26, 2012, 07:11:44 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking. 

Apotheoun's tortured reasoning in favor of continued communion with Rome is anything but clear.
has nothing to do with what EM was quoting and commenting on.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #197 on: April 26, 2012, 07:15:15 PM »

I don't know, Iconodule. I find Apotheoun's posts both here and on CAF to be very clear. In this particular case I cannot understand his choice, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't supported his positions with ample reference to his Patriarch and other sources of authority within his tradition.
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #198 on: April 26, 2012, 07:16:35 PM »

I don't know, Iconodule. I find Apotheoun's posts both here and on CAF to be very clear. In this particular case I cannot understand his choice, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't supported his positions with ample reference to his Patriarch and other sources of authority within his tradition.

He is able to quote statements, yes, but to weave a coherent, logical argument from them, no.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #199 on: April 26, 2012, 07:18:43 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking.  As to your muddled assertion, there is not the slightest bit of hyperbole and eisogesis in what Apotheoun wrote (or writes). 

Well, "the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it" would seem like a bit of an exaggeration/generalization to some.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #200 on: April 26, 2012, 07:25:37 PM »

Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking.  As to your muddled assertion, there is not the slightest bit of hyperbole and eisogesis in what Apotheoun wrote (or writes).  

Well, "the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it" would seem like a bit of an exaggeration/generalization to some.
They are wrong, as it is neither an exaggeration nor generalization, as no instance of the Eastern bishops accepting what the bishop of Rome said simply because he said it, can be cited.  Many instances of the bishop of Rome being told "no" can, on the contrary, be cited time and time again.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 07:27:47 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #201 on: April 26, 2012, 07:47:42 PM »

Huh

I don't understand what you're getting at, Biro.

Yes, you do.
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/
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #202 on: April 26, 2012, 07:53:42 PM »

Um...I do? Wow. You know me so well...even better than I know myself, apparently! Cheesy

(No, really...what?)
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #203 on: April 26, 2012, 08:43:28 PM »

This "vicar" language again? Funny how certain topics reoccur everywhere on the internet...

While I can't and won't make a guess at how well Apotheoun sleeps at night, I think that there is something to be said for the point of view that one is in communion with their Patriarch, without necessarily being in lock-step agreement with every decision made by every other church or bishop. Things like the differences in canon between the Ethiopians and the Copts, for instance, don't seem to keep either church up at night. Granted, there is a vast difference here in that we don't have the Ethiopians telling the rest of the communion that they must therefore add books to their canons or risk their eternal souls (or whatever other analogy you can think of that is analogous to Rome dictating to its "eastern lung"), but still...even though I don't understand how the Melkites do it, I can very much relate to the reaction of "well, that's Rome's POV, ours is ____". Maybe that's because I felt that way more and more in my process of de-conversion from the RCC. I guess not everybody is so willing to leave, but it's not like the Melkites are the first to tell Rome off (to some degree). The Maronites, of all people, did so too when Rome sent Papal legates who attempted to enforce Roman custom on them, and the Spanish did the same when the same situation played itself out regarding the Mozarabic vs. standard Roman liturgy. Neither groups were particularly successful in the long run, but there does seem to be a precedent here (and not just among Easterners, as the Maronites are Orientals and the Mozarabs Westerners).

Would any of you Catholic posters care to speculate as to the Catholic standing of the Maronites or the Spanish?
The Latin Church should not have tried to impose its traditions on the Maronites. That was wrong.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #204 on: April 26, 2012, 08:44:58 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #205 on: April 26, 2012, 08:56:45 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #206 on: April 26, 2012, 09:00:27 PM »

The Latin Church should not have tried to impose its traditions on the Maronites.

Nor on the Mozarabs, no? Even after the Papal legate sent to investigate it in the 10th century spoke approvingly of it (after the Council of Frankfurt had apparently insinuated that it was in some way at fault for the Toldean Bishop Elipando's adoptionist heresy due to its supposed "Islamic" influences, despite the fact that it predates both the birth of the heretical bishop and the arrival of the Muslims in Spain by nearly a century at least), it was still suppressed in all but a handful of parishes in and around Toledo. Sad
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #207 on: April 26, 2012, 09:39:25 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #208 on: April 26, 2012, 09:40:11 PM »

The Latin Church should not have tried to impose its traditions on the Maronites.

Nor on the Mozarabs, no? Even after the Papal legate sent to investigate it in the 10th century spoke approvingly of it (after the Council of Frankfurt had apparently insinuated that it was in some way at fault for the Toldean Bishop Elipando's adoptionist heresy due to its supposed "Islamic" influences, despite the fact that it predates both the birth of the heretical bishop and the arrival of the Muslims in Spain by nearly a century at least), it was still suppressed in all but a handful of parishes in and around Toledo. Sad
I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of Latinizations.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #209 on: April 26, 2012, 10:05:59 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #210 on: April 26, 2012, 10:10:19 PM »

P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,029


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #211 on: April 26, 2012, 11:15:08 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #212 on: April 26, 2012, 11:43:34 PM »

I don't know, Iconodule. I find Apotheoun's posts both here and on CAF to be very clear. In this particular case I cannot understand his choice, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't supported his positions with ample reference to his Patriarch and other sources of authority within his tradition.

He is able to quote statements, yes, but to weave a coherent, logical argument from them, no.

It's rather simple. The Church is where the bishop is. Apotheoun believes that his bishop holds the orthodox faith. There is, therefore, no reason for him to leave communion with his bishop for another. I can see where he is coming from (refusing to allow hierarchical super-structures define his faith), and I have great respect for this ideal.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #213 on: April 26, 2012, 11:48:33 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #214 on: April 26, 2012, 11:49:25 PM »

P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #215 on: April 26, 2012, 11:50:27 PM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?
To which specific rights are you referring? Those rights cannot interefer with the dogmas defined at Vatican I.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #216 on: April 27, 2012, 12:00:40 AM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?
To which specific rights are you referring? Those rights cannot interefer with the dogmas defined at Vatican I.
LOL.  Of course not.
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."[
you all didn't think "the Supreme Pontiff" seriously meant anything of substance by that, did you?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #217 on: April 27, 2012, 12:54:54 AM »

P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.
He didn't call it: your supreme pontiff did, the one that your "Ecumenical Council" of Vatican II demands that "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra."  So your Pope Paul VI need not have called Lyon II a general council ex cathedra for you to be bound to submit your mind and will to his judgement.  "That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." So you are without excuse.  Unless, of course, you present supreme pontiff contradicts his predecessors.  Happens all the time. Cheesy
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 12:55:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #218 on: April 27, 2012, 02:50:36 AM »

P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.

Pope Paul's statement suggests a possible return to traditional thinking regarding 8 councils. Namely, they were called general councils up until St. Bellarmine and his 16th century followers added them en masse to the list of ecumenical councils.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #219 on: April 27, 2012, 02:54:15 AM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #220 on: April 27, 2012, 02:58:15 AM »

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  Grin!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?

I don't think Papist is being any more hard-nosed than most Orthodox are: you guys (most of you) aren't willing to unite with OOs unless they acknowledge all 7 councils -- even though they already agree with the teachings of those councils.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 965


WWW
« Reply #221 on: April 27, 2012, 04:26:57 AM »

Chris,

I have to admit that, after having spent close to 5 decades worshipping as an Eastern Catholic, 45 years of those years as a canonical Melkite, I've ceased being much surprised at anything said with regard to my religious affiliation, but ... a LARPer? That's pretty creative on your part; I've never even thought to use that description in regard to vagante episcopi - where it would be so much more easily understood than the true, but obscure, Latin term - I'll have to keep it in mind.

Todd, a LARPer as well? Who knew? I just thought he was a particularly principled Melkite Greek Catholic with whom I often agree and occasionally don't.

Is there a costume associated with such role play? If so, I'd like to pick one up. My two little ones have been suggesting that Dad should dress up when he takes them trick-or-treating and I've resisted because I wasn't sure that I could pull off it off well. Just how should a Melkite masquerading as a Catholic deck himself out for maximum believability (and to get his fair share of candy)?

Todd has put it well. Like Todd, I'm in communion with my Patriarch, as I was with his two predecessors, of blessed memory, and my patriarch is in communion with your patriarch (albeit the popes have elected not to use that title any longer). Additionally, I'm going to offer an understanding, a view if you will, that I've posted a few times in the past; it's one to which I held before you let me fully understand the apparent duplicity of my religious convictions.

Quote
Ours is a conflicted Church but we cannot and will not stand around, wringing our hands, and waiting for the moment at which the Holy Spirit decides to illumne all concerned and bring a millenium or more of separation to an end. So, we celebrate every aspect of the religious beliefs that we share either with both Rome and Constantinople or with only one of them. I can't ask that anyone fully understand; I'm not sure we always do. [It's one of those 'mystery' things, I guess].

It's not beyond imagining that, when the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Commission meets, and our Church name is mentioned, those on both sides look across the table and say - simultaneously - "what is with those Melkites?" - to which the simultaneous replies from both parties are shrugged shoulders and mumbled "who knows"  Huh

We do not claim to be more orthodox in our catholicity than Catholics, nor more catholic in our orthodoxy than the Orthodox. We claim nothing more than to be what we are. And, we don't imagine that we're the only Christians of this stripe. I know or know of persons, both Catholic and Orthodox, as well as some few of other Churches. whom I consider to have also walked the fine line that allows one to see and appreciate the truth in both and long for, pray for, the time when there will be a single shared understanding of that truth.

In the interim, I'm a bit perplexed at what you'd have me and those like me do? Separate from Rome or from wherever we're presently moored and establish yet another division in the Christian faith? I think not; one hardly can wrap one's mind around the notion that such would be God-pleasing.

Isa, my brother and friend, paid me a great compliment

Quote from: ialmisry
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.

I consider being in communion with Todd to likewise not be a bad place to be.

At the same time, there are any number of folk, Isa being one, David another, Father Ambrose yet another (and the list goes on) with whom I would be honored to be in communio sacris. That such can't presently be the case (and won't be in my lifetime) is a source of unending pain, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I consider myself in spiritual communion with them.

Many years,

Neil 
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #222 on: April 27, 2012, 08:35:02 AM »

Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.

XB!!

M.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 08:36:06 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #223 on: April 27, 2012, 10:09:41 AM »

Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,152


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #224 on: April 27, 2012, 10:15:26 AM »

P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.

Pope Paul's statement suggests a possible return to traditional thinking regarding 8 councils. Namely, they were called general councils up until St. Bellarmine and his 16th century followers added them en masse to the list of ecumenical councils.
Again, you can call them moogala if you want. That doesn't change the fact that they are dogmatic and binding.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   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 0.216 seconds with 72 queries.