OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 11:08:01 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 10819 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #315 on: April 27, 2012, 02:16:05 PM »

Quote
I thought the reason that the EO church has not called such a council was that they believe that there has been no need for one. Correct me if I am wrong
2013 last I heard. Of course the EP cant just say, "yeah this is ecumenical".

PP
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #316 on: April 27, 2012, 02:17:01 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.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.  

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

This little paper, posted by SCOBA on its website, a Joint Statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Diolouge, as it relates the Orthodox position on that body reflects my strong, personal beliefs. A few excerpts may illustrate an important point here:

"In such a communion of (reunited Roman and Orthodox) Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today.  Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting.  His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church.  The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would.  The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion.  The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3).  In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

 http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html


I suspect that the Melkite Church and at least the BCC based on her catechism material, would generally concur with the Orthodox statement, only adding that they believe that they have found a way in which to achieve what the Orthodox seek. While I disagree, I respect them.

I do not understand Roman Catholics who find NO WAY to do anything except concur in all of the tortured and logically inconsistent interpretations of the teachings of the Roman Church which deal with supremacy and  infallibility. Their view of unity with us is consistent with Grant's terms to Robert E. Lee. I've said that before....

Some of you will no doubt have to conclude that a future Pope and a future Roman Church which might find a path to real unity with the Orthodox have abandoned the Catholic faith and you will be sedevacantists and defenders of Isa's favorite pejorative- ultramontanism. Don't worry though, you will have counterparts from Orthodoxy should that occur and you will all be able to continue your back and forths with even more vigor.

As much as it is painful to admit as much, it seems that the most some of us are able to concede is that holding hands and singing Amazing Grace is fun, but not too effective in promoting real unity.
A faithful Catholic could not support a unity that is false, and not grounded in Truth. Either the Catholic Church teaches the truth, or it does not.

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #317 on: April 27, 2012, 02:17:41 PM »

Quote
I thought the reason that the EO church has not called such a council was that they believe that there has been no need for one. Correct me if I am wrong
2013 last I heard. Of course the EP cant just say, "yeah this is ecumenical".

PP
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #318 on: April 27, 2012, 02:19:31 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.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.
So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion.
No, where have I mentioned "branches"?  I have said that the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.  The one Catholic Church exists only in and through the many local (diocesan / eparchial) Churches, and all of these Churches together form a common union, i.e., a communion, of self-governing Churches under the leadership of a bishop. 
The branches are clear. You think that two bodies not in commmunion with one another are both the Catholic Church. Neither the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Catholic Church agree with that.
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al.), for just as Christ is not divided when the Eucharistic bread is broken into many pieces, so also His existence is not divided in the many local Churches.  The one Catholic and Apostolic Church exists only in and through the many local Churches, and in this way the Church mirrors the Holy Trinity where three distinct persons are indivisibly one God.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:21:55 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: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #319 on: April 27, 2012, 02:20:48 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.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.
So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion.
No, where have I mentioned "branches"?  I have said that the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.  The one Catholic Church exists only in and through the many local (diocesan / eparchial) Churches, and all of these Churches together form a common union, i.e., a communion, of self-governing Churches under the leadership of a bishop. 
The branches are clear. You think that two bodies not in commmunion with one another are both the Catholic Church. Neither the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Catholic Church agree with that.
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al.), for just as Christ is not divided when the Eucharistic bread is broken into many pieces, so also He existence not divided in the many local Churches.
The Church may be present in the sacrament. That does not mean that it is present in the schismatics themselves.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #320 on: April 27, 2012, 02:23:20 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.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.
So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion.
No, where have I mentioned "branches"?  I have said that the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.  The one Catholic Church exists only in and through the many local (diocesan / eparchial) Churches, and all of these Churches together form a common union, i.e., a communion, of self-governing Churches under the leadership of a bishop. 
The branches are clear. You think that two bodies not in commmunion with one another are both the Catholic Church. Neither the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Catholic Church agree with that.
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al.), for just as Christ is not divided when the Eucharistic bread is broken into many pieces, so also He existence not divided in the many local Churches.
The Church may be present in the sacrament. That does not mean that it is present in the schismatics themselves.
Christ is present wherever He wills to be present, and I doubt that you know what He thinks and does, so you are not in a position to say where He is or is not.
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: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #321 on: April 27, 2012, 02:24:42 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.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.
So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion.
No, where have I mentioned "branches"?  I have said that the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.  The one Catholic Church exists only in and through the many local (diocesan / eparchial) Churches, and all of these Churches together form a common union, i.e., a communion, of self-governing Churches under the leadership of a bishop. 
The branches are clear. You think that two bodies not in commmunion with one another are both the Catholic Church. Neither the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Catholic Church agree with that.
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al.), for just as Christ is not divided when the Eucharistic bread is broken into many pieces, so also He existence not divided in the many local Churches.
The Church may be present in the sacrament. That does not mean that it is present in the schismatics themselves.
Christ is present wherever He wills to be present, and I doubt that you know what He thinks and does, so you are not in a position to say where He is or is not.
I said the Church. I didn't say Christ. Of course there is a way in which Christ present everywhere, but it's not the same manner as his presence in the Church.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #322 on: April 27, 2012, 02:24:55 PM »

What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( Grin):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed.  The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!
You mean like the Universal Doctor of the Church? St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Aquinas is universal only in the Vatican.  Physician, heal thyself.

At least he was honest "mihi videtur ut palea."  Still, not enough to spare him from being struck down for attempting to come to accuse the Orthodox of their alleged "errors" to their face at Lyons.
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #323 on: April 27, 2012, 02:25:38 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #324 on: April 27, 2012, 02:26:21 PM »

What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( Grin):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed.  The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!
You mean like the Universal Doctor of the Church? St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Aquinas is universal only in the Vatican.  Physician, heal thyself.

At least he was honest "mihi videtur ut palea."  Still, not enough to spare him from being struck down for attempting to come to accuse the Orthodox of their alleged "errors" to their face at Lyons.
No, he is the uinversal doctor of the Catholic Church. I am not sure what you mean by "The Vatican." Aquinas taught in France, not Rome.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #325 on: April 27, 2012, 02:26:40 PM »

Quote
I thought the reason that the EO church has not called such a council was that they believe that there has been no need for one. Correct me if I am wrong
2013 last I heard. Of course the EP cant just say, "yeah this is ecumenical".

PP
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
Can't tell until after it has happened.
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: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #326 on: April 27, 2012, 02:28:39 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
I am not talking about the branch theory, and perhaps this will help to clarify matters:

When I talk about "local Churches" I am referring to diocesan / eparchial Churches, and not to the groupings of those Churches (e.g., Roman, Melkite, Russian, etc.).  In other words, I am talking about all the local Churches that make up the Roman patriarchate, the Melkite patriarchate, the Moscow patriarchate, etc.  The One Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, in each and every local Church - regardless of its patriarchal connections - when it celebrates the Eucharist of the Lord.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:29:52 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #327 on: April 27, 2012, 02:30:19 PM »


I don't know you from Adam (or to be more exact Eve), and so I have no way of knowing who you do or do not have a friendship with.  Vague statements and generalizations are not going to convince me to alter my position.  I will remain steadfast in support of the Zoghby Initiative, which - by the way - remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Holy Synod.

Keep your position.  Your attitude is what is in need of adjustment.

As I said, I know of none besides yourself and Irish Melkite who are as touchy and snarky and mean...in some cases.

I am suggesting that as it stands and has stood, you are not very good reps for your religion.

Personally I think the Melkite position is indicative of how communion should be among distinct Churches, but you fellows haven't a clue as to how to present that.

Maybe you should stick to quoting the bishops.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #328 on: April 27, 2012, 02:32:15 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
I am not talking about the branch theory, and perhaps this will help to clarify matters:

When I talk about "local Churches" I am referring to diocesan / eparchial Churches, and not to the groupings of those Churches (e.g., Roman, Melkite, Russian, etc.).  In other words, I am talking about all the local Churches that make up the Roman patriarchate, the Melkite patriarchate, the Moscow patriarchate, etc.  The One Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, in each and every local Church - regardless of its patriarchal connections - when it celebrates the Eucharist of the Lord.
And whom does this include?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #329 on: April 27, 2012, 02:32:23 PM »


I don't know you from Adam (or to be more exact Eve), and so I have no way of knowing who you do or do not have a friendship with.  Vague statements and generalizations are not going to convince me to alter my position.  I will remain steadfast in support of the Zoghby Initiative, which - by the way - remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Holy Synod.

Keep your position.  Your attitude is what is in need of adjustment.

As I said, I know of none besides yourself and Irish Melkite who are as touchy and snarky and mean...in some cases.

I am suggesting that as it stands and has stood, you are not very good reps for your religion.

Personally I think the Melkite position is indicative of how communion should be among distinct Churches, but you fellows haven't a clue as to how to present that.

Maybe you should stick to quoting the bishops.
I am sure that we all need an attitude adjustment from time to time.  Nevertheless I stand by what I said because you have referred - as you tend to do in all your posts - to unnamed "persons" and I have no way of knowing if you are talking about real or imaginary individuals.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:34:25 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: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #330 on: April 27, 2012, 02:35:37 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
I am not talking about the branch theory, and perhaps this will help to clarify matters:

When I talk about "local Churches" I am referring to diocesan / eparchial Churches, and not to the groupings of those Churches (e.g., Roman, Melkite, Russian, etc.).  In other words, I am talking about all the local Churches that make up the Roman patriarchate, the Melkite patriarchate, the Moscow patriarchate, etc.  The One Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, in each and every local Church - regardless of its patriarchal connections - when it celebrates the Eucharist of the Lord.
And whom does this include?
All those Churches that have maintained Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #331 on: April 27, 2012, 02:35:50 PM »

What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( Grin):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed.  The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!
You mean like the Universal Doctor of the Church? St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Aquinas is universal only in the Vatican.  Physician, heal thyself.

At least he was honest "mihi videtur ut palea."  Still, not enough to spare him from being struck down for attempting to come to accuse the Orthodox of their alleged "errors" to their face at Lyons.
No, he is the uinversal doctor of the Catholic Church. I am not sure what you mean by "The Vatican." Aquinas taught in France, not Rome.
Rome had long left Catholic communion before the Vatican set up shop in France, and Aquinas followed it out of communion with the Catholic Church everywhere, at all times, with everyone.  So he is not even "a", let alone "the," "doctor of the Catholic Church," let alone the, or even "a," universal one.  A common delusion the parochial has about being "universal."  Btw, he started his "Summa" at Rome.  Too bad it wasn't Orthodox.
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: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #332 on: April 27, 2012, 02:36:54 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
I am not talking about the branch theory, and perhaps this will help to clarify matters:

When I talk about "local Churches" I am referring to diocesan / eparchial Churches, and not to the groupings of those Churches (e.g., Roman, Melkite, Russian, etc.).  In other words, I am talking about all the local Churches that make up the Roman patriarchate, the Melkite patriarchate, the Moscow patriarchate, etc.  The One Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, in each and every local Church - regardless of its patriarchal connections - when it celebrates the Eucharist of the Lord.
And whom does this include?
All those Churches that have maintained Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist.
And that is why you are a branch theorist. While you are not 100% incorrect here, you need to clarify that there is only one body, so that you understand that if churches are not in communion with eachother, they cannot all be the Church. Otherwise you are a branch theorist.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #333 on: April 27, 2012, 02:38:51 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
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: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #334 on: April 27, 2012, 02:40:36 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
I am not talking about the branch theory, and perhaps this will help to clarify matters:

When I talk about "local Churches" I am referring to diocesan / eparchial Churches, and not to the groupings of those Churches (e.g., Roman, Melkite, Russian, etc.).  In other words, I am talking about all the local Churches that make up the Roman patriarchate, the Melkite patriarchate, the Moscow patriarchate, etc.  The One Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, in each and every local Church - regardless of its patriarchal connections - when it celebrates the Eucharist of the Lord.
And whom does this include?
All those Churches that have maintained Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist.
And that is why you are a branch theorist. While you are not 100% incorrect here, you need to clarify that there is only one body, so that you understand that if churches are not in communion with eachother, they cannot all be the Church. Otherwise you are a branch theorist.
No.  I subscribe - obviously unlike you - to the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the Fathers.  By the way, Rome itself has embraced that form of ecclesiology in various documents (e.g., Communionis Notio to mention just one text - a fairly good read, with some minor problems).
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #335 on: April 27, 2012, 02:41:07 PM »


I don't know you from Adam (or to be more exact Eve), and so I have no way of knowing who you do or do not have a friendship with.  Vague statements and generalizations are not going to convince me to alter my position.  I will remain steadfast in support of the Zoghby Initiative, which - by the way - remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Holy Synod.

Keep your position.  Your attitude is what is in need of adjustment.

As I said, I know of none besides yourself and Irish Melkite who are as touchy and snarky and mean...in some cases.

I am suggesting that as it stands and has stood, you are not very good reps for your religion.

Personally I think the Melkite position is indicative of how communion should be among distinct Churches, but you fellows haven't a clue as to how to present that.

Maybe you should stick to quoting the bishops.
I am sure that we all need an attitude adjustment from time to time.  Nevertheless I stand by what I said because you have referred - as you tend to do in all your posts - to unnamed "persons" and I have no way of knowing if you are talking about real or imaginary individuals.
I'm not sure EM makes the distinction.
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: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #336 on: April 27, 2012, 02:41:23 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #337 on: April 27, 2012, 02:45:53 PM »

Quote
Thanks for the info. So are they calling an ecumenical council or will it just be a general council?
General council, but who knows what will happen?

Quote
The one Church is indivisibly present in all the many local Churches (Roman, Melkite, Eastern Orthodox, Maronite, et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

PP
I am not talking about the branch theory, and perhaps this will help to clarify matters:

When I talk about "local Churches" I am referring to diocesan / eparchial Churches, and not to the groupings of those Churches (e.g., Roman, Melkite, Russian, etc.).  In other words, I am talking about all the local Churches that make up the Roman patriarchate, the Melkite patriarchate, the Moscow patriarchate, etc.  The One Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, in each and every local Church - regardless of its patriarchal connections - when it celebrates the Eucharist of the Lord.

This bears repeating. 

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #338 on: April 27, 2012, 02:56:00 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope. Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,031



« Reply #339 on: April 27, 2012, 03:12:25 PM »

Hi all. I was away from my computer for a couple hours and fell behind in the reading. I'll have time later to read the dozens of posts that I haven't yet, but for the moment I just want to respond to this response to my last response:

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.

So it seems you're modifying your statement

Quote
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.

to something more to the tune of

Quote
If an Eastern Catholic does not hold to all Catholic teachings, but does hold to all Orthodox teaching, then he/she should go into the Orthodox communion

right? If so, then I applaud that change, as I think the latter statement is a strong improvement over the former.

As to whether Todd and Joe (which Joe btw?) agree with the Eastern Orthodox completely, I really couldn't say.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #340 on: April 27, 2012, 03:13:01 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope.
Like Pope Honorius?

Isn't this the Chair?


St. Peter's cathedra at Rome is in the Lateran.  So your supreme pontiff, off at the Vatican, wasn't speaking from his chair when he issued Pastor Aeternus.


Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic
he would begin to be Catholic, joining communion with the Catholic Church at all places and times with everyone in the Catholic Church confessing the Orthodox Faith.
 
and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".
yes he is

The Catholic Church defines which patriarch is pope.  No pope defines which Church is Catholic.
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: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #341 on: April 27, 2012, 03:15:38 PM »

Hi all. I was away from my computer for a couple hours and fell behind in the reading. I'll have time later to read the dozens of posts that I haven't yet, but for the moment I just want to respond to this response to my last response:

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.

So it seems you're modifying your statement

Quote
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.

to something more to the tune of

Quote
If an Eastern Catholic does not hold to all Catholic teachings, but does hold to all Orthodox teaching, then he/she should go into the Orthodox communion

right? If so, then I applaud that change, as I think the latter statement is a strong improvement over the former.

As to whether Todd and Joe (which Joe btw?) agree with the Eastern Orthodox completely, I really couldn't say.

Yes, after reading more of what Todd has written on this thread, I am modifying my comments. I don't think he fully agrees with either the Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox. I think he is making up his own religion and, consequently, he is LARPing.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 03:16:29 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #342 on: April 27, 2012, 03:18:01 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope. Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".

But I framed the question deliberately - I didn't suggest that a Pope would simply go on the 'net and say 'hey forget all that stuff, here's the New Deal....' I purposely invoked collegiality, consensus, discernment of will, the speaking from the throne as a pronouncement representing the Magesterium of the Church - if that pronouncement were to be viewed by you as being inconsistent with the teachings of Vatican I , would you be a sedevacantist?

If the answer is yes - think about it. In the Orthodox view no council is binding unless it's teachings are accepted. We view Rome as saying that no teachings are binding unless they are proclaimed through a Council/reinforced by a Pope and the binding nature of the Council is determined by the Holy Father and the Bishops - not by the body of the Church.

Hence the rejection of Florence by the Orthodox confounded western thinkers for centuries.

So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #343 on: April 27, 2012, 03:21:52 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope. Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".

But I framed the question deliberately - I didn't suggest that a Pope would simply go on the 'net and say 'hey forget all that stuff, here's the New Deal....' I purposely invoked collegiality, consensus, discernment of will, the speaking from the throne as a pronouncement representing the Magesterium of the Church - if that pronouncement were to be viewed by you as being inconsistent with the teachings of Vatican I , would you be a sedevacantist?

If the answer is yes - think about it. In the Orthodox view no council is binding unless it's teachings are accepted. We view Rome as saying that no teachings are binding unless they are proclaimed through a Council/reinforced by a Pope and the binding nature of the Council is determined by the Holy Father and the Bishops - not by the body of the Church.

Hence the rejection of Florence by the Orthodox confounded western thinkers for centuries.

So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?
I'm not sure how a teaching can be "redefined". So I need to think more about your question. If such a situation came up, I'm sure quite a few Catholics would have a decision to make.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #344 on: April 27, 2012, 03:25:16 PM »



So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

Oh why not be wild and crazy and "read" Pastor Aeternus as it was intended by the moderates and see what you get?....Don't even have to change the durned thing.  Just read it as it was intended and as it was further refined during the Second Vatican Council...

Nah....can't do that...

 Roll Eyes
Logged

podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #345 on: April 27, 2012, 03:27:07 PM »

Here goes another one:

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception of Mary as defined by the west - not under an Eastern analysis of the nature of the Theotokas?

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings of the Assumption of Mary in lieu of traditional Eastern teachings on her Dormition and Falling Asleep?

How about Purgatory and indulgences?

I know what Dr. Dragani http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm has to say on these matters, but i am interested in the perspective of our posters here.



Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,663


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #346 on: April 27, 2012, 03:29:42 PM »

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #347 on: April 27, 2012, 03:30:36 PM »

Here goes another one:

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception of Mary as defined by the west - not under an Eastern analysis of the nature of the Theotokas?

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings of the Assumption of Mary in lieu of traditional Eastern teachings on her Dormition and Falling Asleep?

How about Purgatory and indulgences?

I know what Dr. Dragani http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm has to say on these matters, but i am interested in the perspective of our posters here.




For that matter, what of Melkites?
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #348 on: April 27, 2012, 03:32:23 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope. Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".

But I framed the question deliberately - I didn't suggest that a Pope would simply go on the 'net and say 'hey forget all that stuff, here's the New Deal....' I purposely invoked collegiality, consensus, discernment of will, the speaking from the throne as a pronouncement representing the Magesterium of the Church - if that pronouncement were to be viewed by you as being inconsistent with the teachings of Vatican I , would you be a sedevacantist?

If the answer is yes - think about it. In the Orthodox view no council is binding unless it's teachings are accepted. We view Rome as saying that no teachings are binding unless they are proclaimed through a Council/reinforced by a Pope and the binding nature of the Council is determined by the Holy Father and the Bishops - not by the body of the Church.

Hence the rejection of Florence by the Orthodox confounded western thinkers for centuries.

So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

What would *that* look like?
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #349 on: April 27, 2012, 03:34:09 PM »

Here goes another one:

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception of Mary as defined by the west - not under an Eastern analysis of the nature of the Theotokas?

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings of the Assumption of Mary in lieu of traditional Eastern teachings on her Dormition and Falling Asleep?

How about Purgatory and indulgences?

I know what Dr. Dragani http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm has to say on these matters, but i am interested in the perspective of our posters here.




For that matter, what of Melkites?

Not to mention Todd and Joe.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #350 on: April 27, 2012, 03:36:06 PM »



So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

Oh why not be wild and crazy and "read" Pastor Aeternus as it was intended by the moderates and see what you get?....Don't even have to change the durned thing.  Just read it as it was intended and as it was further refined during the Second Vatican Council...

Nah....can't do that...

 Roll Eyes
no...can't do that and be honest.  Your supreme pontiff Pius was no moderate.
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #351 on: April 27, 2012, 03:36:19 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope. Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".

But I framed the question deliberately - I didn't suggest that a Pope would simply go on the 'net and say 'hey forget all that stuff, here's the New Deal....' I purposely invoked collegiality, consensus, discernment of will, the speaking from the throne as a pronouncement representing the Magesterium of the Church - if that pronouncement were to be viewed by you as being inconsistent with the teachings of Vatican I , would you be a sedevacantist?

If the answer is yes - think about it. In the Orthodox view no council is binding unless it's teachings are accepted. We view Rome as saying that no teachings are binding unless they are proclaimed through a Council/reinforced by a Pope and the binding nature of the Council is determined by the Holy Father and the Bishops - not by the body of the Church.

Hence the rejection of Florence by the Orthodox confounded western thinkers for centuries.

So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

What would *that* look like?
It would have to be done away with. No matter how hard you try, you cant say red is blue.

PP
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #352 on: April 27, 2012, 03:36:34 PM »

Here goes another one:

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception of Mary as defined by the west - not under an Eastern analysis of the nature of the Theotokas?

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings of the Assumption of Mary in lieu of traditional Eastern teachings on her Dormition and Falling Asleep?

How about Purgatory and indulgences?

I know what Dr. Dragani http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm has to say on these matters, but i am interested in the perspective of our posters here.




The doctrine of the Assumption does not teach that Mary didn't have to go through death.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #353 on: April 27, 2012, 03:37:03 PM »

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.


If the dogmas of Vatican I were not denied, I would accept the union. If they were denied, I would become a sedevacantist because the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that the chair of Peter was empty.
So he speaks infallibly from the chair of Peter except when you don't agree with what he says.

Can't be empty if someone is speaking from it.  The problem of sedevacantists:they can't explain how that works.  Sort of like the Old Ritualists.
If there were a Pope speaking heresy from the Chair, he wouldn't be a real Pope. Plus, if he denied the dogmas of Vatican I to go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he would cease being Catholic and would then be Eastern Orthodox. In such a case, he would not be the Pope, because the answer to the question "is the Pope Catholic?" is "yes".

But I framed the question deliberately - I didn't suggest that a Pope would simply go on the 'net and say 'hey forget all that stuff, here's the New Deal....' I purposely invoked collegiality, consensus, discernment of will, the speaking from the throne as a pronouncement representing the Magesterium of the Church - if that pronouncement were to be viewed by you as being inconsistent with the teachings of Vatican I , would you be a sedevacantist?

If the answer is yes - think about it. In the Orthodox view no council is binding unless it's teachings are accepted. We view Rome as saying that no teachings are binding unless they are proclaimed through a Council/reinforced by a Pope and the binding nature of the Council is determined by the Holy Father and the Bishops - not by the body of the Church.

Hence the rejection of Florence by the Orthodox confounded western thinkers for centuries.

So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

What would *that* look like?
It would have to be done away with. No matter how hard you try, you cant say red is blue.

PP
Or that blue is red, for that matter. Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #354 on: April 27, 2012, 03:38:54 PM »

Here goes another one:

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception of Mary as defined by the west - not under an Eastern analysis of the nature of the Theotokas?

Are Eastern Catholics bound to accept Papal teachings of the Assumption of Mary in lieu of traditional Eastern teachings on her Dormition and Falling Asleep?

How about Purgatory and indulgences?

I know what Dr. Dragani http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm has to say on these matters, but i am interested in the perspective of our posters here.



Some of the eastern Churches celebrate a Feast of the Immaculate Conception, some do not.

Purgatory and indulgences are not an integral part of catechesis in most eastern Catholic Churches, nor do the teachings become the subject of homilies.  I've never heard a teaching on purgation from an eastern Catholic pastor.  I have heard the mention of purgatory by one heavily Latinized pastor but it was a reference in passing and that was it.

For myself, I have an understanding of purgation that I believe is patristic in its core.  I was not taught any kind of Jansenist fear-based teaching so I don't need to shed that though I think I would if that were the case.  As it is, I am comfortable without spending too much time on it though I am aware in my spiritual life that my prayers for the dead are efficacious and that I need to pay close attention to my actions and thoughts and words for I can unleash hurt and harm that will take an act of God to erase and set right.  Since I intend to take God up on his offer and share in his divine life, I expect to be able to one day see VERY clearly all the harm that I have done.  I don't care what you call it, or anyone else calls it, I don't expect the experience to be pretty or fun.

I personally have a particular attachment to the Immaculate Conception and y'all will have to pry that out of my cold dead hands to get it away from me.  But I am happy to celebrate that quietly on the Feast of St. Anne.

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #355 on: April 27, 2012, 03:42:30 PM »



So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

Oh why not be wild and crazy and "read" Pastor Aeternus as it was intended by the moderates and see what you get?....Don't even have to change the durned thing.  Just read it as it was intended and as it was further refined during the Second Vatican Council...

Nah....can't do that...

 Roll Eyes

Words do have meanings. Since the Catholic church invented much of what has become our Anglo-American system of jurisprudence and in particular, the venerable rules to be applied to the meaning of words and phrases in a contract,  it is important to view the actual words of Vatican 1. It is fair to consider documents such as Pastor Aeternus as being in the nature of a contract between the Church and her faithful so...

Quoting directly from the aforesaid document, I fail to see how understanding a 'moderate' view can temper what it says? (I have the same problem with constitutional law and 'original intent' vs. 'the living document' as well as with court's of law determining 'legislative intent' by the way...but that is a whole 'nother debate....)

From Pastor Aeternus and thanks to EWTN for posting it :  http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

"Chapter 2: On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs:

....3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary "for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with [the Roman Church] because of its pre-eminent authority."....


Chapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.


....4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.


Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff


9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

If they didn't mean to say what this clearly says, they shouldn't have said it at all. I rest my case - I still can not understand how my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters can accept those definitions. (I am sure that an educated canonist like Fr. Alexis Toth, i.e. St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, must have been well aware of this document at the time of his meeting with Archbishop Ireland.)

As I have said repeatedly, there is no logical wriggle room here and to agree to disagree is the best we can accomplish since Vatican 1 so clearly defined the papal prerogatives.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 03:43:56 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #356 on: April 27, 2012, 03:47:11 PM »



So, under such a hypothetical what would it be - assume that in the hypothetical a Pope has redefined or reinterpreted Pastor Aeternus in a manner acceptable to the Orthodox?

Oh why not be wild and crazy and "read" Pastor Aeternus as it was intended by the moderates and see what you get?....Don't even have to change the durned thing.  Just read it as it was intended and as it was further refined during the Second Vatican Council...

Nah....can't do that...

 Roll Eyes

Words do have meanings. Since the Catholic church invented much of what has become our Anglo-American system of jurisprudence and in particular, the venerable rules to be applied to the meaning of words and phrases in a contract,  it is important to view the actual words of Vatican 1. It is fair to consider documents such as Pastor Aeternus as being in the nature of a contract between the Church and her faithful so...

Quoting directly from the aforesaid document, I fail to see how understanding a 'moderate' view can temper what it says? (I have the same problem with constitutional law and 'original intent' vs. 'the living document' as well as with court's of law determining 'legislative intent' by the way...but that is a whole 'nother debate....)

From Pastor Aeternus and thanks to EWTN for posting it :  http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

"Chapter 2: On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs:

....3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary "for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with [the Roman Church] because of its pre-eminent authority."....


Chapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.


....4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.


Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff


9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

If they didn't mean to say what this clearly says, they shouldn't have said it at all. I rest my case - I still can not understand how my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters can accept those definitions. (I am sure that an educated canonist like Fr. Alexis Toth, i.e. St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, must have been well aware of this document at the time of his meeting with Archbishop Ireland.)

As I have said repeatedly, there is no logical wriggle room here and to agree to disagree is the best we can accomplish since Vatican 1 so clearly defined the papal prerogatives.

The Orthodox ALWAYS leave out the on part that strikes a balance.

Glad to know you think you know better than my Church.  At least you are clearly Orthodox in that regard.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #357 on: April 27, 2012, 03:49:19 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,663


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #358 on: April 27, 2012, 03:51:45 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.

Everybody likes him.  Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #359 on: April 27, 2012, 03:51:59 PM »

Guns going off, snakes all over. This thread is starting to look like an Indiana Jones movie.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.254 seconds with 72 queries.