OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 12:50:53 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 12369 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: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #225 on: April 27, 2012, 10:16:50 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.
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #226 on: April 27, 2012, 10:18:08 AM »

....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #227 on: April 27, 2012, 10:21:03 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.

If you stick to that line and Rome does not - where will that leave you?

Recognizing the post-schism councils as local synods by both east and west is the first step to any reunion with the west agreeing, and the east looking the other way,  that those councils' theological interpretations are just that - theologoumena and not dogma.  

In other words, as we did before the break - we have to agree to disagree - as the Eastern fathers did for centuries with regards to the teachings of St. Augustine on the nature of sin and the nature of man.

The problem of course is that for Rome to admit the same would place the sincerely held beliefs of perhaps a billion or so Roman Catholics at risk as centuries of teachings have held quite to the contrary. Hence, I can't construct a result where that happens.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #228 on: April 27, 2012, 10:24:27 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.

Exactly, and consistent with my previous post in response to Papist's comment about a 'moogala'. If you look at how vociferously we Orthodox argue about certain theologoumena like (and I HATE to mention them) Toll-houses you would get an example of what I am talking about. We argue about it incessantly but we don't kick each other out of the house over it. (at least the sane ones of us don't do that.)
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #229 on: April 27, 2012, 10:32:31 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.
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.

Which, thanks be to God and the intercession of the Saints and the protection of the Theotokas - much of the non-Hellenist presence of Orthodoxy in North America - not just OCA and ACROD - including the Antiochians and Ukrainians - can be thankful for the choices made by their ancestors when the time to choose was before them.

For that matter - the continued existence of the Eastern Catholic Church in North America owes a debt to those who made that leap as well - because Rome was shown that people of conscience will choose as did Becket or Thomas More rather than renounce their faith. No doubt Rome's 1870-1960 plan for them was to make them like the Maronites.

The moderating of statements made by Vatican 2 and the refinement of the rules by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches is no doubt a result of someone actually reading the petitions and open letters sent to Rome in the 1930 through 1960 period by Greek Catholics who consciences were challenged by Rome's 'interpretations' of the terms of Union and who recognized the academic, legal and spiritual truths which were contained therein.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #230 on: April 27, 2012, 10:33:50 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 

x3
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #231 on: April 27, 2012, 10:39:15 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 
I call those who act and believe as you do "LARPers" for two reasons. You like act as if you are Catholic in your faith, but you are not. You reject dogmas of the faith. You also like to pretend like you are Eastern Orthodox, but you are not. You accept their faith, but you reject communion with the EOs. The most honest thing that people who believe as you do can do is to leave the Catholic Church and enter into communion with the EOs. I can't, for the life of me, see why you don't choose that path.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #232 on: April 27, 2012, 10:39:59 AM »

....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
No. I am suggesting that dissenters should do the honest thing and realize that they are no longer Catholic.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #233 on: April 27, 2012, 10:41:55 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.

If you stick to that line and Rome does not - where will that leave you?

Recognizing the post-schism councils as local synods by both east and west is the first step to any reunion with the west agreeing, and the east looking the other way,  that those councils' theological interpretations are just that - theologoumena and not dogma.  

In other words, as we did before the break - we have to agree to disagree - as the Eastern fathers did for centuries with regards to the teachings of St. Augustine on the nature of sin and the nature of man.

The problem of course is that for Rome to admit the same would place the sincerely held beliefs of perhaps a billion or so Roman Catholics at risk as centuries of teachings have held quite to the contrary. Hence, I can't construct a result where that happens.
Well, first off, I don't think that Rome would do that, or they even made such a statement, it would be so nuanced that it could be interperated 100 different ways. However, if Rome did that, I would join the ranks of those who hold the traditional faith of the council of Trent, but believes that the See of Peter is empty. Of course, I can't imagine such a thing happening.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #234 on: April 27, 2012, 10:45:16 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.

Exactly, and consistent with my previous post in response to Papist's comment about a 'moogala'. If you look at how vociferously we Orthodox argue about certain theologoumena like (and I HATE to mention them) Toll-houses you would get an example of what I am talking about. We argue about it incessantly but we don't kick each other out of the house over it. (at least the sane ones of us don't do that.)
I think there is a big difference between arguing about concepts such as Limbo or Toll houses, and arguing about concepts that have been canonized by the Church. Where does it end? Will we start calling the later of the seven councils ecumenical? Can we start arguing that the dogmas of Chalcedon were only declared in a "general council", so as not to offened the Oriental Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox? Understand this, there is much that I love about the Easter, and I love my Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters, but I have no patience for Catholics in the fold who try to water down the faith.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #235 on: April 27, 2012, 10:46:37 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.
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.

Which, thanks be to God and the intercession of the Saints and the protection of the Theotokas - much of the non-Hellenist presence of Orthodoxy in North America - not just OCA and ACROD - including the Antiochians and Ukrainians - can be thankful for the choices made by their ancestors when the time to choose was before them.

For that matter - the continued existence of the Eastern Catholic Church in North America owes a debt to those who made that leap as well - because Rome was shown that people of conscience will choose as did Becket or Thomas More rather than renounce their faith. No doubt Rome's 1870-1960 plan for them was to make them like the Maronites.

The moderating of statements made by Vatican 2 and the refinement of the rules by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches is no doubt a result of someone actually reading the petitions and open letters sent to Rome in the 1930 through 1960 period by Greek Catholics who consciences were challenged by Rome's 'interpretations' of the terms of Union and who recognized the academic, legal and spiritual truths which were contained therein.
I respect the decisions of those who disagree with the Catholic Church and go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox. I do not respect the choices of those who disagree with the Catholic Church and remain in her fold. That is dishonest.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #236 on: April 27, 2012, 11:03:09 AM »

....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
No. I am suggesting that dissenters should do the honest thing and realize that they are no longer Catholic.

See:


I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #237 on: April 27, 2012, 11:07:19 AM »

....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
No. I am suggesting that dissenters should do the honest thing and realize that they are no longer Catholic.

See:


I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
I don't know how automatic excommunication works. And I don't think the Pope really wants to risk another painful schism. That being said, I still hold to my post above. Dissenters should do the honest thing, admit that they no longer hold the Catholic faith, and find a Church with which they agree... or maybe join some nice protestant denomination.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #238 on: April 27, 2012, 11:09:07 AM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.





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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #239 on: April 27, 2012, 11:14:50 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
 

It certainly does. 
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #240 on: April 27, 2012, 11:15:41 AM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.
I hold no ill will to those who are moved by their conscience to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. I respect their actions because they are honest.
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Catholic Church.
One Last point: Not all Eastern Catholics are like Todd and Joe. The Eastern Catholic parish here in Albuquerque is a good example of a parish that is faithful to the entire Catholic faith.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 11:18:26 AM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #241 on: April 27, 2012, 11:20:14 AM »

The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
I don't know how automatic excommunication works. And I don't think the Pope really wants to risk another painful schism. That being said, I still hold to my post above. Dissenters should do the honest thing, admit that they no longer hold the Catholic faith, and find a Church with which they agree... or maybe join some nice protestant denomination.

Personally, I don't mind letting the Pope have his cake and eat it too -- that is, declaring certain belief as requirements, but then remaining in communion with some who don't believe those things. But it seems to me that adding on yet another layer (eating the cake once more, as it were): attacking those other Catholics for not taking the initiative to create a schism.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #242 on: April 27, 2012, 11:27:43 AM »

Just a off the top of my heads musings:

Primacy : In a first millenium context the Orthodox can probably agree that Rome is 'primus' among the Pentarchy. This can really only be viewed as a semi-honorific matter however - not one of real substance and power.

Universality: Perhaps - and just perhaps - a 'construct' to accept Rome's jurisdiction over the Churches of the West could be theorized in a manner which clearly protected the ancient rights, dignities and independence of the Eastern churches. A big 'if' as the proverbial 'devil' is in the details... Perhaps the fifth century collapse of the political center of the Western empire which was no doubt the main causal factor in the development of the modern papacy could still be considered in terms of coming to grips with the historical reality of Rome's role in the administration of the other western Christians. Had the western Empire survived as a unified geopolitical player along with Byzantium, history surely would have seen a different path of ecclesiastical understanding in the west.

In the east, the Christian emperors were replaced by the Muslims who retained large swaths of unitary political control over the formerly Christian realms. In the west, there really was never a cohesive, long lasting center to replace Rome and her imperial system.

East and west entered the modern era from two decidedly differing models of secular administration and world view.

Supremacy: From the East's point of view - a deal breaker unless it is only viewed in the context of the ancient notion of 'primus'

'...all the King's horses and all the King's men - couldn't put Humpty together again.'

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #243 on: April 27, 2012, 12:04:43 PM »

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
 

It certainly does. 
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
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
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #244 on: April 27, 2012, 12:15:33 PM »

The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
I don't know how automatic excommunication works. And I don't think the Pope really wants to risk another painful schism. That being said, I still hold to my post above. Dissenters should do the honest thing, admit that they no longer hold the Catholic faith, and find a Church with which they agree... or maybe join some nice protestant denomination.

Personally, I don't mind letting the Pope have his cake and eat it too -- that is, declaring certain belief as requirements, but then remaining in communion with some who don't believe those things. But it seems to me that adding on yet another layer (eating the cake once more, as it were): attacking those other Catholics for not taking the initiative to create a schism.
I'm not creating this layer to the cake. The teachings of the Church do. And I'm not suggesting a new schism with a new ecclesial body. What I am saying is that those who don't agree with the dogmatic teachings of the Church should enter into communion with a church with which they agree.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #245 on: April 27, 2012, 12:16:06 PM »

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
 

It certainly does. 
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


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


« Reply #246 on: April 27, 2012, 12:27:41 PM »

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
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.

Where some of the world's greatest candy bars are made  laugh laugh.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 12:32:46 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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #247 on: April 27, 2012, 12:31:36 PM »

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
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.

Where some of the world's greatest candy bars are made  laugh laugh.


Yes. Yes, they are.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #248 on: April 27, 2012, 12:43:46 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #249 on: April 27, 2012, 12:45:23 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".


I don't think that people like Todd and Joe disagree with the Eastern Orthodox. I think they agree with the Eastern Orthodox completely. This is why I think that they should join the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


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


« Reply #250 on: April 27, 2012, 12:50:44 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #251 on: April 27, 2012, 12:52:44 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
My experience is the same. The only Todds and Joes I have ever encountered are on the internet.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


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


« Reply #252 on: April 27, 2012, 12:54:46 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
My experience is the same. The only Todds and Joes I have ever encountered are on the internet.

Which is just next to Mars.  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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #253 on: April 27, 2012, 12:58:50 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
My experience is the same. The only Todds and Joes I have ever encountered are on the internet.

Which is just next to Mars.  Grin
Joe and Todd of Mars. I think I saw a movie...
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



u
« Reply #254 on: April 27, 2012, 01:11:32 PM »

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
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
As I recall, the pontifex maximus did claim him as their grand sire.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcmack/5081372330/
But we worship at a different altar.

Alternative histories don't count.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:13:32 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #255 on: April 27, 2012, 01:14:40 PM »

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
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
As I recall, the pontifex maximus did claim him as their grand sire.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcmack/5081372330/
But we worship at a different altar.

Alternative histories don't count.
Yes, your alternative Martian history doesn't count.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #256 on: April 27, 2012, 01:18:35 PM »

I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".


I don't think that people like Todd and Joe disagree with the Eastern Orthodox. I think they agree with the Eastern Orthodox completely. This is why I think that they should join the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If they agreed with us completely they would join us.  They have too much integrity and honesty not to.  They have far less cognitive dissonance in their position than does the attempt to fit Pastor Aeternus into the first millenium of the Church.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #257 on: April 27, 2012, 01:19:40 PM »

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
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
As I recall, the pontifex maximus did claim him as their grand sire.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcmack/5081372330/
But we worship at a different altar.

Alternative histories don't count.
Yes, your alternative Martian history doesn't count.
So you believe Mars sired Romulus and Remus?
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
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: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #258 on: April 27, 2012, 01:20:06 PM »

I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts. 

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church. 
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:29:40 PM by Apotheoun » 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
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: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #259 on: April 27, 2012, 01:28:37 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

And as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, she quoted the following text from the catechism:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:32:16 PM by Apotheoun » 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #260 on: April 27, 2012, 01:29:38 PM »

I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #261 on: April 27, 2012, 01:30:33 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #262 on: April 27, 2012, 01:33:24 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  Grin
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #263 on: April 27, 2012, 01:34:56 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  Grin
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

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: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #264 on: April 27, 2012, 01:36:00 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  Grin
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Church does. And the Church was still the Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #265 on: April 27, 2012, 01:36:49 PM »

I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church.  And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.  Grin
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
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: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #266 on: April 27, 2012, 01:37:59 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  Grin
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:38:36 PM by Apotheoun » 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #267 on: April 27, 2012, 01:38:36 PM »

I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church.  And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.  Grin
I don't' have ecclesial influence. The Church and her teachings do. And if you read the councils and the articles of faith, any Melkite who agrees with you is anathema. The Church's words, not mine.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #268 on: April 27, 2012, 01:39:35 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  Grin
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #269 on: April 27, 2012, 01:40:30 PM »

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  Grin
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
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
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 0.278 seconds with 72 queries.