OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 04:37:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why  (Read 11577 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #360 on: April 27, 2012, 03:55:52 PM »

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

I LOVE Indiana Jones movies and I HATE snakes!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #361 on: April 27, 2012, 03:56:36 PM »

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

I LOVE Indiana Jones movies and I HATE snakes!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Me too. I am a huge Jones fan, and I terribly afraid of snakes. haha.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #362 on: April 27, 2012, 03:56:44 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

Reading it in a way acceptable to Roman Catholic moderates would be a topic for a Roman Catholic forum. On an Orthodox-Catholic discussion board, podkarpasta's question about how it could be read or redefined in a way acceptable to Orthodox is far more relevent. Because Orthodox will never accept 3.9 'as written' (and no, your shell game of trying to turn the focus to 3.5 doesn't get us there. If 3.5 adequately captured the Roman teaching, the council wouldn't have felt the need to write 3.9--or at least so presume those of us who even if we disagree with Rome credit with intellectual coherence).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,598


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #363 on: April 27, 2012, 03:56:58 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.

Please- for the sake of the discussion - post the 'one' part that you are talking about which 'strikes' a balance.

Do the phrases I emphasized have no meaning?

If they do not, then why are they there? It is presumed in the law that the writer of a document intends for his or her words to have meaning and if they have clear and unambiguous meaning without the need for interpretation, then they stand for what they say.

I do not profess to 'know better' than anyone - I am merely pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument. If you want to refute it, go ahead but not with snarky comments or emotional exaggerations.

If my editing of the document is viewed by you as being deliberately misleading, please point out how this is so, and what of import I failed to emphasize and we can have a conversation - otherwise this is endless blather among us all.

(I might add, by the way, that American legal education is indebted to the Jesuits who took the Socractic method and applied it to Canon Law and through that into the civil law systems of the west.)

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 03:59:05 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #364 on: April 27, 2012, 03:57:28 PM »

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".

In other words, when the president does it, it's not illegal.

That didn't save Nixon's behind, and it ought not even apply to your Pope if he really is infallible as Roman doctrine that you assent to claims that he is. And don't even start with me with the "but not EVERYTHING he says is infallible", because that is just a dodge since there is no clear guideline for determining when he is speaking infallibly and when he isn't (yeah, "on matters concerning faith and morals", as opposed to what? Puppies and duct tape? Astronomy and the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers? He's the Roman Pope -- faith and morals are his job!).

I love how Roman doctrine makes zero sense and then we non-Romanists are so often accused of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting it. It's hard to hit a moving target. That is, in fact, why it is moving. Anything can mean anything you need it to and be as retroactive or not retroactive as you need it to be. Pope Honorius obviously wasn't infallible or at least wasn't speaking infallibly in his heresy, buuuuut Popes who repudiated the heresy were because they were right. I guess the Roman Pope sort of flickers in and out of existence as necessary, going from "real" to "unreal" depending on where Latin theology is at during any given epoch (quick, who's the "real" Pope -- Leo III who opposed the filioque in the beginning of the 9th century, or Pope Gregory X who presided over the Second Council of Lyon in 1272-74 that made it normative?). He's like some sort of magically infallible* hologram. Are holograms made out of "rock" now too, faithful Romans?

* except when he's not, of course.
Logged

witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #365 on: April 27, 2012, 04:00:12 PM »

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

We leave it out because it's not relevent. It's like focusing on the fact that Eutyches never 'divided the two natures' as if that somehow balances out the fact that he confused them.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #366 on: April 27, 2012, 04:00:18 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

I like and appreciate your penchant for clear, concise answers.  I may not always agree with you (what fun would that be  laugh), but your honesty without nastiness is refreshing.  Ditto to Papist.
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,058


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #367 on: April 27, 2012, 04:00:47 PM »

I was going to say something else, but never mind.  Lips Sealed

Here's a puppy and a bunny.

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/
fleur-de-lys
Chestertonian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 80



« Reply #368 on: April 27, 2012, 04:01:31 PM »

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".

In other words, when the president does it, it's not illegal.

That didn't save Nixon's behind, and it ought not even apply to your Pope if he really is infallible as Roman doctrine that you assent to claims that he is. And don't even start with me with the "but not EVERYTHING he says is infallible", because that is just a dodge since there is no clear guideline for determining when he is speaking infallibly and when he isn't (yeah, "on matters concerning faith and morals", as opposed to what? Puppies and duct tape? Astronomy and the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers? He's the Roman Pope -- faith and morals are his job!).

I love how Roman doctrine makes zero sense and then we non-Romanists are so often accused of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting it. It's hard to hit a moving target. That is, in fact, why it is moving. Anything can mean anything you need it to and be as retroactive or not retroactive as you need it to be. Pope Honorius obviously wasn't infallible or at least wasn't speaking infallibly in his heresy, buuuuut Popes who repudiated the heresy were because they were right. I guess the Roman Pope sort of flickers in and out of existence as necessary, going from "real" to "unreal" depending on where Latin theology is at during any given epoch (quick, who's the "real" Pope -- Leo III who opposed the filioque in the beginning of the 9th century, or Pope Gregory X who presided over the Second Council of Lyon in 1272-74 that made it normative?). He's like some sort of magically infallible* hologram. Are holograms made out of "rock" now too, faithful Romans?

* except when he's not, of course.

Post of the month material here, I feel.
Logged

Between us, by the peace of God, such truth can now be told;

Yea, there is strength in striking root, and good in growing old.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #369 on: April 27, 2012, 04:02:31 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
wretched out of context and edited to be squeezed in, as always.


Poisonous stuff indeed.  For the antidote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
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: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #370 on: April 27, 2012, 04:05:00 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".

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

I like and appreciate your penchant for clear, concise answers.  I may not always agree with you (what fun would that be  laugh), but your honesty without nastiness is refreshing.  Ditto to Papist.
Wow, I feel so loved.....ya bunch of heretics  laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

In all seriousness, I appreciate it. I enjoy our back-and-forths. Especially since I'm the worst combination imagined to a Roman Catholic. A Lutheran raised Baptist-turned Orthodox convert  laugh laugh

PP
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #371 on: April 27, 2012, 04:07:10 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

I like and appreciate your penchant for clear, concise answers.  I may not always agree with you (what fun would that be  laugh), but your honesty without nastiness is refreshing.  Ditto to Papist.
Wow, I feel so loved.....ya bunch of heretics  laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

 Kiss Kiss

 laugh laugh

Especially since I'm the worst combination imagined to a Roman Catholic. A Lutheran raised Baptist-turned Orthodox convert  laugh laugh

PP

 Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked
Logged

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

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #372 on: April 27, 2012, 04:08:36 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
wretched out of context and edited to be squeezed in, as always.


Poisonous stuff indeed.  For the antidote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
I love the way you all contort that passage to get around what it is saying. It always makes me laugh.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #373 on: April 27, 2012, 04:12:40 PM »

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".

In other words, when the president does it, it's not illegal.

That didn't save Nixon's behind, and it ought not even apply to your Pope if he really is infallible as Roman doctrine that you assent to claims that he is. And don't even start with me with the "but not EVERYTHING he says is infallible", because that is just a dodge since there is no clear guideline for determining when he is speaking infallibly and when he isn't (yeah, "on matters concerning faith and morals", as opposed to what? Puppies and duct tape? Astronomy and the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers? He's the Roman Pope -- faith and morals are his job!).

I love how Roman doctrine makes zero sense and then we non-Romanists are so often accused of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting it. It's hard to hit a moving target. That is, in fact, why it is moving. Anything can mean anything you need it to and be as retroactive or not retroactive as you need it to be. Pope Honorius obviously wasn't infallible or at least wasn't speaking infallibly in his heresy, buuuuut Popes who repudiated the heresy were because they were right. I guess the Roman Pope sort of flickers in and out of existence as necessary, going from "real" to "unreal" depending on where Latin theology is at during any given epoch (quick, who's the "real" Pope -- Leo III who opposed the filioque in the beginning of the 9th century, or Pope Gregory X who presided over the Second Council of Lyon in 1272-74 that made it normative?). He's like some sort of magically infallible* hologram. Are holograms made out of "rock" now too, faithful Romans?

* except when he's not, of course.
Nope. I'm just saying if a person starts to hold heretical doctrinces, said person is no longer Catholic. In order to be Pope one must be Catholic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #374 on: April 27, 2012, 04:15:01 PM »

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".

In other words, when the president does it, it's not illegal.

That didn't save Nixon's behind, and it ought not even apply to your Pope if he really is infallible as Roman doctrine that you assent to claims that he is. And don't even start with me with the "but not EVERYTHING he says is infallible", because that is just a dodge since there is no clear guideline for determining when he is speaking infallibly and when he isn't (yeah, "on matters concerning faith and morals", as opposed to what? Puppies and duct tape? Astronomy and the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers? He's the Roman Pope -- faith and morals are his job!).

I love how Roman doctrine makes zero sense and then we non-Romanists are so often accused of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting it. It's hard to hit a moving target. That is, in fact, why it is moving. Anything can mean anything you need it to and be as retroactive or not retroactive as you need it to be. Pope Honorius obviously wasn't infallible or at least wasn't speaking infallibly in his heresy, buuuuut Popes who repudiated the heresy were because they were right. I guess the Roman Pope sort of flickers in and out of existence as necessary, going from "real" to "unreal" depending on where Latin theology is at during any given epoch (quick, who's the "real" Pope -- Leo III who opposed the filioque in the beginning of the 9th century, or Pope Gregory X who presided over the Second Council of Lyon in 1272-74 that made it normative?). He's like some sort of magically infallible* hologram. Are holograms made out of "rock" now too, faithful Romans?

* except when he's not, of course.
Nope. I'm just saying if a person starts to hold heretical doctrinces, said person is no longer Catholic. In order to be Pope one must be Catholic.
But you believe who is pope defines who is Catholic.

Nice catch 22 you got there.
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: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #375 on: April 27, 2012, 04:15:21 PM »

Wow, I feel so loved.....ya bunch of heretics  laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

In all seriousness, I appreciate it. I enjoy our back-and-forths. Especially since I'm the worst combination imagined to a Roman Catholic. A Lutheran raised Baptist-turned Orthodox convert  laugh laugh

PP
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 04:16:11 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #376 on: April 27, 2012, 04:16:30 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
wretched out of context and edited to be squeezed in, as always.


Poisonous stuff indeed.  For the antidote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
I love the way you all contort that passage to get around what it is saying. It always makes me laugh.
no, I read Pastor Aeternus straightforward.  Which is why I laugh at it.
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: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #377 on: April 27, 2012, 04:17:09 PM »

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".

In other words, when the president does it, it's not illegal.

That didn't save Nixon's behind, and it ought not even apply to your Pope if he really is infallible as Roman doctrine that you assent to claims that he is. And don't even start with me with the "but not EVERYTHING he says is infallible", because that is just a dodge since there is no clear guideline for determining when he is speaking infallibly and when he isn't (yeah, "on matters concerning faith and morals", as opposed to what? Puppies and duct tape? Astronomy and the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers? He's the Roman Pope -- faith and morals are his job!).

I love how Roman doctrine makes zero sense and then we non-Romanists are so often accused of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting it. It's hard to hit a moving target. That is, in fact, why it is moving. Anything can mean anything you need it to and be as retroactive or not retroactive as you need it to be. Pope Honorius obviously wasn't infallible or at least wasn't speaking infallibly in his heresy, buuuuut Popes who repudiated the heresy were because they were right. I guess the Roman Pope sort of flickers in and out of existence as necessary, going from "real" to "unreal" depending on where Latin theology is at during any given epoch (quick, who's the "real" Pope -- Leo III who opposed the filioque in the beginning of the 9th century, or Pope Gregory X who presided over the Second Council of Lyon in 1272-74 that made it normative?). He's like some sort of magically infallible* hologram. Are holograms made out of "rock" now too, faithful Romans?

* except when he's not, of course.
Nope. I'm just saying if a person starts to hold heretical doctrinces, said person is no longer Catholic. In order to be Pope one must be Catholic.
But you believe who is pope defines who is Catholic.

Nice catch 22 you got there.
No, Christ does, as do the teachings of the Church. Nice try Izzy All Misery.  Wink
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 04:17:22 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #378 on: April 27, 2012, 04:18:37 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
wretched out of context and edited to be squeezed in, as always.


Poisonous stuff indeed.  For the antidote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
I love the way you all contort that passage to get around what it is saying. It always makes me laugh.
no, I read Pastor Aeternus straightforward.  Which is why I laugh at it.
No, I laugh at your silly contortions and theological hoops through which you jump in order to misinterpret St. Iranaeus.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #379 on: April 27, 2012, 04:19:30 PM »

Quote
Nope. I'm just saying if a person starts to hold heretical doctrinces, said person is no longer Catholic. In order to be Pope one must be Catholic.
I dont get it, the Pope himself is the arbiter of what is Catholic. To me, that is like saying, "Im not drunk till I say I'm drunk!" (NOTE: Yes Ive used that one before...)

Wow, I feel so loved.....ya bunch of heretics  laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

In all seriousness, I appreciate it. I enjoy our back-and-forths. Especially since I'm the worst combination imagined to a Roman Catholic. A Lutheran raised Baptist-turned Orthodox convert  laugh laugh

PP

Dude, I lol'ed seriously. Thanks

PP
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #380 on: April 27, 2012, 04:28:01 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
wretched out of context and edited to be squeezed in, as always.


Poisonous stuff indeed.  For the antidote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
I love the way you all contort that passage to get around what it is saying. It always makes me laugh.

Quote
For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.

No twisting required. Just quoting the whole passage in a translation that's not deliberately obfuscatory. St. Ireneus doesn't declare 'all must agree with Rome' as a point of faith; rather he says they must *because* it has preserved the Apostolic tradition, which it does because as center of the imperium it's the place that Christians from everywhere in the world eventually come (thereby preserving it from falling into some private opinion).

If either point of his rationale changes (i.e., if Rome goes from the center of Empire to a post-barbarian invasion backwater then later one large city among many, or stops preserving the Apostolic tradition, as when it reversed its position on the filioque) then it logically follows that his conclusion (everyone must agree with Rome) changes as well.

Indeed, St. Ireneus even captures the mechanism by which Rome stopped preserving the Apostolic tradition--it stopped being the crossroads of the world and fell into private opinions that replaced the faith preserved 'by those who are on every side'.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #381 on: April 27, 2012, 04:29:29 PM »

Nope. I'm just saying if a person starts to hold heretical doctrinces, said person is no longer Catholic. In order to be Pope one must be Catholic.

So which was the non-Pope: Leo III or Gregory X?

Quote
I dont get it, the Pope himself is the arbiter of what is Catholic. To me, that is like saying, "Im not drunk till I say I'm drunk!" (NOTE: Yes Ive used that one before...)

I'd believe that before I'd believe the jumbled nonsense coming out of the Vatican. At least we could verify if you were right in your self-assessment with a breathalyzer.

Hmmm...maybe that's what they need...a Popealyzer...get on it, Vatican scientists! It turns out the world does not actually need to know what you believe about aliens...or at least that hasn't been a source of schism. (Yet.)
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #382 on: April 27, 2012, 04:33:07 PM »

Quote
Hmmm...maybe that's what they need...a Popealyzer


Quote
Hmmm...maybe that's what they need...a Popealyzer...get on it, Vatican scientists! It turns out the world does not actually need to know what you believe about aliens...or at least that hasn't been a source of schism. (Yet.)
I dunno, to me, it just seems that to Roman Catholics, the Pope is the arbiter of what is Catholic and by denying his dictates it starts throwing all kinds of wrenches in the machinery.

PP
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,598


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #383 on: April 27, 2012, 04:36:02 PM »

I think we should switch gears and go to another topic - like Macedonia or Ukraine. me bad.... Wink
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #384 on: April 27, 2012, 04:36:39 PM »

I think we should switch gears and go to another topic - like Macedonia or Ukraine. me bad.... Wink
We can always go back to the Melkites..... laugh

PP
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #385 on: April 27, 2012, 04:37:15 PM »

Good stuff. Even a quote from St. Iraneus of Lyons.
wretched out of context and edited to be squeezed in, as always.


Poisonous stuff indeed.  For the antidote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31054.msg492147.html#msg492147
I love the way you all contort that passage to get around what it is saying. It always makes me laugh.
no, I read Pastor Aeternus straightforward.  Which is why I laugh at it.
No, I laugh at your silly contortions and theological hoops through which you jump in order to misinterpret St. Iranaeus.
All one has to do is read him to see PA's silly contortions and theological hoops it would have us jump through to take its misinterpretation of St. Irenaeus as the Gospel Truth
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
Quote
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Do you know me?” “I do know you, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.” Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
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: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #386 on: April 27, 2012, 04:41:12 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,598


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #387 on: April 27, 2012, 04:46:24 PM »

Where's a map when you need one....

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #388 on: April 27, 2012, 04:49:10 PM »

Where's a map when you need one....





or



« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 04:59:24 PM by J Michael » Logged

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

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #389 on: April 27, 2012, 05:22:39 PM »

Where's a map when you need one....





Anyone else every notice that Mordor is in the EastWink
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 05:30:10 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #390 on: April 27, 2012, 05:24:24 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #391 on: April 27, 2012, 05:25:17 PM »

Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,598


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #392 on: April 27, 2012, 05:28:18 PM »

As Ryan Seacrist would say, peace, out!  for now at least! Smiley
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #393 on: April 27, 2012, 05:28:45 PM »


I have no idea why but this made me lol.  Cheesy
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #394 on: April 27, 2012, 05:29:22 PM »

Any bets on how much longer before this thread is closed?  Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #395 on: April 27, 2012, 05:35:02 PM »

Any bets on how much longer before this thread is closed?  Grin
it is decending rather quick.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #396 on: April 27, 2012, 05:42:41 PM »

Any bets on how much longer before this thread is closed?  Grin
it is decending rather quick.

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #397 on: April 27, 2012, 05:46:41 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".

The only way to connect the clause about following Rome directly to it 'preeminent authority' is to ignore about 50% of the words in the sentence (including the part about 'inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved'--not will be or even is always but has been). Not to mention ignoring the fact that Ireneus starts the paragraph by saying that he's choosing to speak about one church (Rome) because it would be "very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches"--clearly implying that whatever argument he's about to make (about apostolic succession which is what the entire chapter is about), he could make it about 'all the Churches'; Rome is just the best (or possibly easiest) example.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #398 on: April 27, 2012, 05:48:43 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".

The only way to connect the clause about following Rome directly to it 'preeminent authority' is to ignore about 50% of the words in the sentence (including the part about 'inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved'--not will be or even is always but has been). Not to mention ignoring the fact that Ireneus starts the paragraph by saying that he's choosing to speak about one church (Rome) because it would be "very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches"--clearly implying that whatever argument he's about to make (about apostolic succession which is what the entire chapter is about), he could make it about 'all the Churches'; Rome is just the best (or possibly easiest) example.
Superior origin it is then. Even better. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #399 on: April 27, 2012, 05:50:41 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".

The only way to connect the clause about following Rome directly to it 'preeminent authority' is to ignore about 50% of the words in the sentence (including the part about 'inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved'--not will be or even is always but has been). Not to mention ignoring the fact that Ireneus starts the paragraph by saying that he's choosing to speak about one church (Rome) because it would be "very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches"--clearly implying that whatever argument he's about to make (about apostolic succession which is what the entire chapter is about), he could make it about 'all the Churches'; Rome is just the best (or possibly easiest) example.
Superior origin it is then. Even better. Smiley
*facepalm*
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #400 on: April 27, 2012, 06:12:15 PM »

A Thomist who is immune to reason. laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #401 on: April 27, 2012, 06:13:32 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".

The only way to connect the clause about following Rome directly to it 'preeminent authority' is to ignore about 50% of the words in the sentence (including the part about 'inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved'--not will be or even is always but has been). Not to mention ignoring the fact that Ireneus starts the paragraph by saying that he's choosing to speak about one church (Rome) because it would be "very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches"--clearly implying that whatever argument he's about to make (about apostolic succession which is what the entire chapter is about), he could make it about 'all the Churches'; Rome is just the best (or possibly easiest) example.
Superior origin it is then. Even better. Smiley
*facepalm*
A facepalm it is the. EVEN BETTERER.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #402 on: April 27, 2012, 08:31:36 PM »

I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".
in any case, no matter the translation, it puts Rome in the context of being founded by St. Peter AND St. Paul AND among Apostolic sees like Smyrna and Ephesus in Asia (all the more pertinent, as Asia was the one who took the lead in challenging the first beginnings of an idea of Roman supremacy).

Its "superior origin" and "preeminent authority" came from being the capital and all roads of the empire leading to it.  Hence the rays of Orthodoxy came to it from all corners and in the Roman crucible burned off the dross of heresy which collected there from all corners as well.  It was a prism where all the rays of from the four corners were focused, not a sun shedding its rays into all corners, "that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #403 on: April 27, 2012, 08:58:13 PM »

Alright, now I've read all that's been posted here today -- and boy are my arms tired!

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.

Even if he says "I am speaking ex cathedra" that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #404 on: April 27, 2012, 09:02:15 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.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

Personally, I'd be happy if the Pope issued a statement that there have only been 12 ecumenical councils and not 21. But I've spend enough time on fisheaters to know that not all of my fellow traditionalists agree with me all the time.  Sad  Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.