OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 10:30:09 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 11102 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #405 on: April 27, 2012, 09:06:15 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 don't think you get it, primuspilus. Possibly b/c you're trying to apply Orthodox thinking to Catholicism: unlike you guys, we don't believe that we must all agree on how many ecumenical councils there have been in order to be in full communion.

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

PP

A disagreement on how many ecumenical councils there have been doesn't necessarily mean a disagreement on doctrine.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #406 on: April 27, 2012, 09:29:04 PM »

BTW, a few posts have mentioned Joe ... I'm assuming Joe Monahan, a.k.a. Neil, is meant?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 09:29:30 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,091


« Reply #407 on: April 27, 2012, 10:49:14 PM »

A disagreement on how many ecumenical councils there have been doesn't necessarily mean a disagreement on doctrine.

It does when the doctrine defined at said councils places one outside of the once commonly-shared faith.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #408 on: April 27, 2012, 10:55:37 PM »

A disagreement on how many ecumenical councils there have been doesn't necessarily mean a disagreement on doctrine.

It does when the doctrine defined at said councils places one outside of the once commonly-shared faith.

That's logical but not relevant, since I'm talking about relations among Catholics, not relations between Catholics and Orthodox.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,472



« Reply #409 on: April 27, 2012, 10:59:34 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.
So Pastor Aeternus is an even more worthless dogma than we have hereto been led to believe?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 11:00:21 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #410 on: April 27, 2012, 11:04:26 PM »

I don't think you get it, primuspilus. Possibly b/c you're trying to apply Orthodox thinking to Catholicism: unlike you guys, we don't believe that we must all agree on how many ecumenical councils there have been in order to be in full communion.

Orthodoxy doesn't have a problem with vagueness on the number of ecumenical councils. I believe there have been 9 and am in full communion with those Orthodox who think the number is 7. But whether we agree on whether the 8th and 9th councils were ecumenical or not, we agree that the doctrine set forth was and is the apostolic doctrine of the Church. What we seem to be seeing on this thread is that within the Roman communion there is not only disagreement about how many councils there were but also about whether the dogmas proclaimed at those councils were or were not the actual doctrine of the Church as a whole.
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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,091


« Reply #411 on: April 27, 2012, 11:09:58 PM »

A disagreement on how many ecumenical councils there have been doesn't necessarily mean a disagreement on doctrine.

It does when the doctrine defined at said councils places one outside of the once commonly-shared faith.

That's logical but not relevant, since I'm talking about relations among Catholics, not relations between Catholics and Orthodox.

And why else would certain Eastern Catholics apparently seem to be siding with the Orthodox? Is it because the Latins are innovating within their realm and then trying to say that these innovations are part of the same faith (and, according to some understandings, that ALL Catholics must therefore accept them), and some people within the communion are saying no to that?

When it comes to Rome not making sense, there is much for both non-Roman Catholics and Orthodox to puzzle over.
Logged

Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 972


WWW
« Reply #412 on: April 28, 2012, 01:20:34 AM »

BTW, a few posts have mentioned Joe ... I'm assuming Joe Monahan, a.k.a. Neil, is meant?

Thanks Peter. I was starting to feel a bit left out.

Chris,

As I have explained before - Joe Monahan was a pseudonym used in my former role as a mod at CAF in the days when the EC forum there meant Eastern Christianity. My name is Neil, honest it is! Me, 'the Irish one', as Mary is wont to call me.

Btw, if Todd and I are going to start our own Church, any suggestions as to how we should choose our patriarch?

I really regret taht I have to be away and off-line pretty much all weekend - catching up on this thread is going to be a bear.

Many years,

Neil - that's spelled N E I L - short for Cornelius - which is also not spelled J O E
Logged

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

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
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: 1,556



« Reply #413 on: April 28, 2012, 03:09:14 AM »

BTW, a few posts have mentioned Joe ... I'm assuming Joe Monahan, a.k.a. Neil, is meant?

Thanks Peter. I was starting to feel a bit left out.

Chris,

As I have explained before - Joe Monahan was a pseudonym used in my former role as a mod at CAF in the days when the EC forum there meant Eastern Christianity. My name is Neil, honest it is! Me, 'the Irish one', as Mary is wont to call me.

Btw, if Todd and I are going to start our own Church, any suggestions as to how we should choose our patriarch?

I really regret taht I have to be away and off-line pretty much all weekend - catching up on this thread is going to be a bear.

Many years,

Neil - that's spelled N E I L - short for Cornelius - which is also not spelled J O E

You should choose the new patriarch by drawing lots, the only truly respectable way to do it (after all, the new patriarch can immediately claim divine right, since he was chosen completely by chance). Grin
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #414 on: April 28, 2012, 08:04:01 AM »

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.
So Pastor Aeternus is an even more worthless dogma than we have hereto been led to believe?

That's a pretty loaded question, but I can safely say: if you've been led to believe that Pastor Aeternus says that the pope is infallible anytime he says "I am speaking ex cathedra", you've been deceived.

As for it being worthless, I would ask you this: is it a dogma in Orthodoxy that any council that says "This is an ecumenical council" is infallible? If not, does that mean that ecumenical councils are a worthless concept?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #415 on: April 28, 2012, 08:22:26 AM »

BTW, a few posts have mentioned Joe ... I'm assuming Joe Monahan, a.k.a. Neil, is meant?

Thanks Peter. I was starting to feel a bit left out.

You're welcome of course. Incidentally, after posting that question, it occurred to me that Papist is probably used to calling you Joe Monahan b/c he knows you from CAF, whereas I know you from byzcath and hence think of you mainly as Neil / Irish Melkite.

I really regret taht I have to be away and off-line pretty much all weekend - catching up on this thread is going to be a bear.

Rumor has it that there's something in the water that affecting everyone's posting frequency.  Shocked
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #416 on: April 28, 2012, 08:23:48 AM »

I don't think you get it, primuspilus. Possibly b/c you're trying to apply Orthodox thinking to Catholicism: unlike you guys, we don't believe that we must all agree on how many ecumenical councils there have been in order to be in full communion.

Orthodoxy doesn't have a problem with vagueness on the number of ecumenical councils. I believe there have been 9 and am in full communion with those Orthodox who think the number is 7.

Touche.

But whether we agree on whether the 8th and 9th councils were ecumenical or not, we agree that the doctrine set forth was and is the apostolic doctrine of the Church.

Indeed, in much the same way that a Catholic who counts 7 ecumenical councils can still agree with all the "dogmas" (even if he/she doesn't call them "dogmas").

What we seem to be seeing on this thread is that within the Roman communion there is not only disagreement about how many councils there were but also about whether the dogmas proclaimed at those councils were or were not the actual doctrine of the Church as a whole.

Actually, there seems to be some question here about whether Catholics can even say (e.g.) "Papal infallibility isn't a dogma", "Vatican I wasn't an ecumenical council", etc.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #417 on: April 28, 2012, 08:51:02 AM »

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.

Two comments ...

1. I can't believe the way the actor (I forget his name) said that line. It was nothing like the way Nixon actually said it.

2. No, I don't think that's similar to saying that a heretical pope automatically ceases being pope.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,091


« Reply #418 on: April 28, 2012, 09:25:19 AM »

How so, Peter? You're basically saying "If he's a heretic, he's not Pope" -- seems pretty analogous to "if the president does it, it's not illegal". If X, then not Y.

And besides, some would say that post-Great Schism Roman Popes have taught a great deal of heresy despite the supposed infallibility afforded them (at least since 1870...), so how could you know whether he has fallen into heresy within an ecclesiology that presupposes the doctrinal correctness of any given Pope for Pope's sake -- that is to say, by virtue of his popeitude? (I'm having entirely too much fun with this.)

It doesn't make sense. You can't have the Pope be the arbiter of Catholic correctness in and of himself. It's a bit of a "who'll police the police" situation.

I know that the fall back position is "we trust the Holy Spirit to guide him, same as any church trusts the Holy Spirit to guide it and its leaders". Yes, fine, but then where was the Holy Spirit when Honorious needed guidance? To say that the Holy Spirit will do this or that does not absolve the individual from safeguarding the faith, be he Pope or layman. So you're all in dereliction of duty. police

(I don't know if that's the correct use of the police smiley, I've just never used it and wanted to see what it was like. I like it.)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 09:26:07 AM by dzheremi » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #419 on: April 28, 2012, 10:32:04 AM »

How so, Peter? You're basically saying "If he's a heretic, he's not Pope" -- seems pretty analogous to "if the president does it, it's not illegal". If X, then not Y.

Surely you can see a difference between saying "If the President murders someone, then he won't be President anymore" and saying "If the President murders someone, then murder is legal"??
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #420 on: April 28, 2012, 11:24:55 AM »

I think some people are having trouble understanding the concept that if a Pope becomes a heretic, he ceases to be Catholic, in which case he is no longer the Pope. Think of it this way. If the President of the United States renounces his citizenship, then he is no longer an American. This also means that he is no longer the President, because in order to be president, one must be an American citizen.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #421 on: April 28, 2012, 11:25:54 AM »

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."
Yes, St. Peter and St. Paul, which only strengthens the Papal claim to  primacy. Thank you for bringing that up. Are you sure you are not a Catholic Apologist pretending to be an Eastern Orthodox polemicist?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 11:26:47 AM 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #422 on: April 28, 2012, 11:27:28 AM »

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
Haha. I spend some time over there. Its an "intersting" place. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #423 on: April 28, 2012, 11:46:12 AM »

How so, Peter? You're basically saying "If he's a heretic, he's not Pope" -- seems pretty analogous to "if the president does it, it's not illegal". If X, then not Y.

Surely you can see a difference between saying "If the President murders someone, then he won't be President anymore" and saying "If the President murders someone, then murder is legal"??

That would require the exercise of logic.   Cool
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #424 on: April 28, 2012, 11:52:10 AM »

That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past.

Not to bring in yet another tangent to this thread, but I must say, having been involved in numerous CAF conversations about ECs, that quite a lot of Catholics still seem to believe in the 'bridge' idea.  Undecided
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #425 on: April 28, 2012, 11:55:34 AM »

How so, Peter? You're basically saying "If he's a heretic, he's not Pope" -- seems pretty analogous to "if the president does it, it's not illegal". If X, then not Y.

Surely you can see a difference between saying "If the President murders someone, then he won't be President anymore" and saying "If the President murders someone, then murder is legal"??

That would require the exercise of logic.   Cool

To paraphrase a popular caricature of Marie Antoinette, let them exercise logic.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,472



« Reply #426 on: April 28, 2012, 11:59:47 AM »

How so, Peter? You're basically saying "If he's a heretic, he's not Pope" -- seems pretty analogous to "if the president does it, it's not illegal". If X, then not Y.

Surely you can see a difference between saying "If the President murders someone, then he won't be President anymore" and saying "If the President murders someone, then murder is legal"??

That would require the exercise of logic.   Cool
There is a mechanism to deal with murderous presidents.  The president can be charged under the law and impeached.  If the president murders someone, he is still president until impeached.  If he murders someone, it does not legalize murder.

There is no mechanism to deal with a heretical pope in the Vatican.  The Vatican's code of canon law and its constitutions expressly rule that out, as he is subject to no one's judgement.  He cannot be removed.  He cannot even be charged.

There's your difference.  And your exercise of logic.

Unless you want to argue that you all have a means to get rid of a heretical pope short of murder/assination.  In which case, let's hear 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
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,675


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #427 on: April 28, 2012, 12:00:08 PM »

How so, Peter? You're basically saying "If he's a heretic, he's not Pope" -- seems pretty analogous to "if the president does it, it's not illegal". If X, then not Y.

Surely you can see a difference between saying "If the President murders someone, then he won't be President anymore" and saying "If the President murders someone, then murder is legal"??

That would require the exercise of logic.   Cool

To paraphrase a popular caricature of Marie Antoinette, let them exercise logic.

The real question is: if we do, will you give us cake?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #428 on: April 28, 2012, 12:02:02 PM »

That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past.

Not to bring in yet another tangent to this thread, but I must say, having been involved in numerous CAF conversations about ECs, that quite a lot of Catholics still seem to believe in the 'bridge' idea.  Undecided

It seems to me though, Peter, that the Melkites fit, at least my idea, of what a bridge Church would be, in that they are in communion without changing their own horizontal and vertical structure, and they have preserved their liturgical and doctrinal traditions while accepting the western traditions without trying to force THEM to change either.

Seems to me that is the model...or something approximate.

M.
Logged

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: 37,472



« Reply #429 on: April 28, 2012, 12:35:23 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."
Yes, St. Peter and St. Paul, which only strengthens the Papal claim to  primacy. Thank you for bringing that up. Are you sure you are not a Catholic Apologist pretending to be an Eastern Orthodox polemicist?
Orthodox polemics are only in the service of Catholic Apologist, as only the Church that confesses the Orthodox Faith is Catholic.  The Catholic Church speaks of primacy of the see of Rome among the Orthodox sees "which exist everywhere...inasmuch as the Tradition has been preserved continuously."  The Vatican talks about supremacy of its supreme pontiff over the bishops of your ecclesiastical community.

Your Vatican doesn't agree with your analysis, which is why they have tried to down play St. Paul.  Hence knocking him off of June 29, Holy Apostles, SS. Peter AND Paul, their common martyrdom, to June 30. It realizes that your supreme pontiff cannot have two founders, and has labeled a heresy the idea that St. Paul was a cofounder (I remember that from my days in Latin high school, looking at dogmatic compiliations).  Such is a much latter development of doctrine.  Of course, that could only happen after Rome started basing its claims to primacy solely on St. Peter, and the beginnings of that is not seen until Pope St. Stephen in the third century.  I wonder if Pope St. Victor, smarting from his rebuke, sowed any seeds of that.

Of course, Scripture attests to the founding of the see of Antioch, unlike Rome, by SS. Peter and Paul.  "The very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at [ANTIOCH] by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul," more ancient and universally known than Rome.  But even Antioch has to yield to the superior orgins of Jerusalem, Mother Church of the world.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,472



« Reply #430 on: April 28, 2012, 12:40:55 PM »

That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past.

Not to bring in yet another tangent to this thread, but I must say, having been involved in numerous CAF conversations about ECs, that quite a lot of Catholics still seem to believe in the 'bridge' idea.  Undecided

It seems to me though, Peter, that the Melkites fit, at least my idea, of what a bridge Church would be, in that they are in communion without changing their own horizontal and vertical structure, and they have preserved their liturgical and doctrinal traditions while accepting the western traditions without trying to force THEM to change either.

Seems to me that is the model...or something approximate.

M.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,472



« Reply #431 on: April 28, 2012, 12:53:38 PM »

I think some people are having trouble understanding the concept that if a Pope becomes a heretic, he ceases to be Catholic, in which case he is no longer the Pope. Think of it this way. If the President of the United States renounces his citizenship, then he is no longer an American. This also means that he is no longer the President, because in order to be president, one must be an American citizen.
Uh, no.  One has to be a native born citizen to be elected president.

Article II Section 1 Clause 5.  No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Once in office, there is nothing preventing him from renouncing his citizenship and still retaining office.  The US has a remedy for that though:

Article II Section 1 Clause 5. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected....
Section 4.  The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

Just because he renounces his citizenship, unless he also resigns, he must be removed by impeachment.  He does not automatically cease being president.

Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #432 on: April 28, 2012, 01:01:04 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.
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 #433 on: April 28, 2012, 01:03:08 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.

How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.
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: 8,238


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #434 on: April 28, 2012, 01:10:27 PM »

That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past.

Not to bring in yet another tangent to this thread, but I must say, having been involved in numerous CAF conversations about ECs, that quite a lot of Catholics still seem to believe in the 'bridge' idea.  Undecided

Unfortunately for them, they are somewhat misguided as Cardinal Kasper writes in  his 2004 book, "That They May All Be One: The Call To Unity."  (n.b.: I am merely citing Kasper - not endorsing his analysis from an Orthodox pov. However, it is instructive in trying to reach a better understanding of relatively current Vatican thinking on the subject.)

As Kasper succinctly points out at page 88 thereof, as a result of the post-USSR meetings of the Joint Commision on Ecumenical Dialogue at Freisling and Balamand held in the early 1990's, two important issues were addressed and a general consensus was reached. The first was that, to the discomfort no doubt of the Orthodox, the right of existing 'uniate churches' (Cardinal Kasper's terminology - not mine) to exist was confirmed AND the concept of 'uniatism' (again, the Cardinal's choice of terminology) was dismissed as a method designed to serve as a model for any future unity of the Church either at that time, or in the future. (n.b. : The dismissal of the uniate model no doubt helped ease the discomfort of the Orthodox as to the first point.)

The Cardinal goes on to note that the then-current Pope, Blessed John Paul II, recognized those twp points as representing a significant 'step forward' http://books.google.com/books?id=oh5krtBReQ8C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=uniatism+is+not+a+bridge&source=bl&ots=BU8957FySh&sig=EOifrwM18fbMgwHWuzxKMYaJLgo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ICCcT9G7Lcaw6AGp1uygDw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=uniatism%20is%20not%20a%20bridge&f=false


While this approach, that of the 'sister church', has not been met with any degree of enthusiasm or endorsement by even the most open to dialogue of the Orthodox, the statements lay out the 'reality' on the ground which existed-that is the then-current 'reaawakening' of the long-suppressed Greek Catholic churches of the former Soviet Bloc while at the same time having tacit, if not express, recognition by Rome that the 'unite' solution was no solution at all.

Kasper goes to comment at length regarding the so-called 'bridge' idea. On the one hand he points out what he views as the positive benefit of the EC's in communion with Rome as being a source to remind Rome of the existence of the continuing state of disunion and to remind Rome of the very vibrancy and validity of the eastern tradition. (n.b. :Don't flame me - these are his ideas - not mine.) But he makes it clear that the old model, based on Florence and her 'progency' will not work and can not be a model for any "anticipated greater future unity.'

So I suspect that the 'bridge' if it exists at all is neither a six-lane modern suspension bridge with a toll house (sorry  Wink) on one end nor is it the 'bridge to nowhere' as illustrated above. If it exists at all, it is a one lane, rickety, covered wooden bridge which serves some limited current day purpose but is one not capable of sustaining any meaningful traffic - in either direction for the general population at large.


« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 01:13:06 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,238


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #435 on: April 28, 2012, 01:11:48 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.

How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

Heck, skip the 'heretic' example, you don't have to go that far. What if he is mentally and physically incapacitated by a stroke? What then?
Logged
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: 37,472



« Reply #436 on: April 28, 2012, 01:12:16 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.
So Pastor Aeternus is an even more worthless dogma than we have hereto been led to believe?

That's a pretty loaded question, but I can safely say: if you've been led to believe that Pastor Aeternus says that the pope is infallible anytime he says "I am speaking ex cathedra", you've been deceived.
Not at all, as I know it is all crap.

Old legal(istic) trick:hinge everything on a clause (like "ex cathedra") and then never define nor specify the term.

As for it being worthless, I would ask you this: is it a dogma in Orthodoxy that any council that says "This is an ecumenical council" is infallible? If not, does that mean that ecumenical councils are a worthless concept?
Not at all: the Second Ecumenical Council did not say "this is an Ecumenical Council" yet it was, and the council of Hiera said "this is an ecumenical council" and it wasn't.

Unlike Pastor Aeternus' claims , Orthodoxy does not define an Ecumenical Council by external criteria.  We know it when we see 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #437 on: April 28, 2012, 01:15:45 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.
Logged

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: 37,472



« Reply #438 on: April 28, 2012, 01:17:42 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.
You are either lying or woefully ignorant.  Your ecclesiastical community's constitionals and law make it quite clear that your supreme pontiff is subject to no one.  I don't have the time cite to cite them, again, but Lord willing maybe later.  They do provide for removing anyone else.  If you can find anything comparable to get rid of a wayward supreme pontiff of yours, then you can cite it and leave off the accusations of lying and conclusion with evil.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,472



« Reply #439 on: April 28, 2012, 01:19:48 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.

Less your words and more your "magisterium's" words.  If "it can be accoplished and it exists" then producing it won't be too big a burden on you.  Then I will confess to and admit woeful ignorance on my part. Not until.
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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #440 on: April 28, 2012, 01:22:46 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."
Yes, St. Peter and St. Paul, which only strengthens the Papal claim to  primacy. Thank you for bringing that up. Are you sure you are not a Catholic Apologist pretending to be an Eastern Orthodox polemicist?
Orthodox polemics are only in the service of Catholic Apologist, as only the Church that confesses the Orthodox Faith is Catholic.  The Catholic Church speaks of primacy of the see of Rome among the Orthodox sees "which exist everywhere...inasmuch as the Tradition has been preserved continuously."  The Vatican talks about supremacy of its supreme pontiff over the bishops of your ecclesiastical community.

Your Vatican doesn't agree with your analysis, which is why they have tried to down play St. Paul.  Hence knocking him off of June 29, Holy Apostles, SS. Peter AND Paul, their common martyrdom, to June 30. It realizes that your supreme pontiff cannot have two founders, and has labeled a heresy the idea that St. Paul was a cofounder (I remember that from my days in Latin high school, looking at dogmatic compiliations).  Such is a much latter development of doctrine.  Of course, that could only happen after Rome started basing its claims to primacy solely on St. Peter, and the beginnings of that is not seen until Pope St. Stephen in the third century.  I wonder if Pope St. Victor, smarting from his rebuke, sowed any seeds of that.

Of course, Scripture attests to the founding of the see of Antioch, unlike Rome, by SS. Peter and Paul.  "The very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at [ANTIOCH] by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul," more ancient and universally known than Rome.  But even Antioch has to yield to the superior orgins of Jerusalem, Mother Church of the world.
You're silly.  Grin
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: 37,472



« Reply #441 on: April 28, 2012, 01:25:48 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."
Yes, St. Peter and St. Paul, which only strengthens the Papal claim to  primacy. Thank you for bringing that up. Are you sure you are not a Catholic Apologist pretending to be an Eastern Orthodox polemicist?
Orthodox polemics are only in the service of Catholic Apologist, as only the Church that confesses the Orthodox Faith is Catholic.  The Catholic Church speaks of primacy of the see of Rome among the Orthodox sees "which exist everywhere...inasmuch as the Tradition has been preserved continuously."  The Vatican talks about supremacy of its supreme pontiff over the bishops of your ecclesiastical community.

Your Vatican doesn't agree with your analysis, which is why they have tried to down play St. Paul.  Hence knocking him off of June 29, Holy Apostles, SS. Peter AND Paul, their common martyrdom, to June 30. It realizes that your supreme pontiff cannot have two founders, and has labeled a heresy the idea that St. Paul was a cofounder (I remember that from my days in Latin high school, looking at dogmatic compiliations).  Such is a much latter development of doctrine.  Of course, that could only happen after Rome started basing its claims to primacy solely on St. Peter, and the beginnings of that is not seen until Pope St. Stephen in the third century.  I wonder if Pope St. Victor, smarting from his rebuke, sowed any seeds of that.

Of course, Scripture attests to the founding of the see of Antioch, unlike Rome, by SS. Peter and Paul.  "The very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at [ANTIOCH] by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul," more ancient and universally known than Rome.  But even Antioch has to yield to the superior orgins of Jerusalem, Mother Church of the world.
You're silly.  Grin
not as silly as arguing with nothing to stand on. Wink
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 01:26:11 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #442 on: April 28, 2012, 01:26:09 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.

Less your words and more your "magisterium's" words.  If "it can be accoplished and it exists" then producing it won't be too big a burden on you.  Then I will confess to and admit woeful ignorance on my part. Not until.

You are wrong here.  And frankly, I don't care what you think.  Your thinking is so negative against the Catholic Church that you are willing exaggerate the negative and deny any positive that is not already designed by you.  I think your actions in some cases promote evil.  They certainly do not stand in service to the truth.

If you want to know what the Vatican says about how it is accomplished: do what I did.

Write to the Vatican.
Logged

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: 37,472



« Reply #443 on: April 28, 2012, 01:29:50 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.

Less your words and more your "magisterium's" words.  If "it can be accoplished and it exists" then producing it won't be too big a burden on you.  Then I will confess to and admit woeful ignorance on my part. Not until.

You are wrong here.  And frankly, I don't care what you think.
IOW you ain't got the goods as advertised.

Your thinking is so negative against the Catholic Church that you are willing exaggerate the negative and deny any positive that is not already designed by you.  I think your actions in some cases promote evil.  They certainly do not stand in service to the truth.
Delusions or lies.  Caveat lector.

If you want to know what the Vatican says about how it is accomplished: do what I did.

Write to the Vatican.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #444 on: April 28, 2012, 01:32:58 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.

Less your words and more your "magisterium's" words.  If "it can be accoplished and it exists" then producing it won't be too big a burden on you.  Then I will confess to and admit woeful ignorance on my part. Not until.

You are wrong here.  And frankly, I don't care what you think.
IOW you ain't got the goods as advertised.



I won't pander to an evil heart.

Go find it yourself.  You know it is there and is possible and has been done.

It suits you to do this in front of people who don't know any better.

It elevates you in your own eyes as some kind of expert on something.

I suppose you need that in you life.

Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,067


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #445 on: April 28, 2012, 01:57:03 PM »

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

It won't make a difference, but here goes.
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/
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 #446 on: April 28, 2012, 02:00:19 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.


I'm not mocking anything, I'm asking a question, which I'll repeat since you didn't really answer it--*How* would it be accomplished? And podkarpasta makes a good point in extending the question--I've always presumed that a corollary of the teachings on infallibility is that most Roman Catholic sincerely believe they will never need to remove a Pope for teaching heresy, so it would make sense not to have a process in place for something that can't happen--but what about dementia or blatant immorality?
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
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: 37,472



« Reply #447 on: April 28, 2012, 02:01:07 PM »



Your Vatican doesn't have the escape clause in its canon law.  Once validly elected and accepted, you are stuck with your supreme pontiff with no means of removing him, except killing him.

That is an outright lie.  That is why I will always say that what you do here is not in the service of truth, and in that manner is evil.


How? That's an actual question, because I don't recall it ever having occurred or hearing about a mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

It can be accomplished and it exists.  Popes can be removed, they can retire.  The reasons must be most dire and compelling.  It is not something that gets a great deal of press, but within the hiearchy of the Church there is a path to doing just that.

If you wish to mock my word: have at it!!...I would expect nothing less around here.

Less your words and more your "magisterium's" words.  If "it can be accoplished and it exists" then producing it won't be too big a burden on you.  Then I will confess to and admit woeful ignorance on my part. Not until.

You are wrong here.  And frankly, I don't care what you think.
IOW you ain't got the goods as advertised.



I won't pander to an evil heart.

Go find it yourself.  You know it is there and is possible and has been done.
There is nothing to find.  I know that it is not anywhere to be found (and I suspect in your heart, you know that as well), and that it is not been done.  Not since Vatican I in the very least.  Of course it had been done when Rome was in Orthodox communion with the Catholic Church.

It suits you to do this in front of people who don't know any better.
Caveat lector.  The readers can see whose argument has a solid basis, and whose is founded on sinking quicksand.

It elevates you in your own eyes as some kind of expert on something.
Truth is its own elevation.

I suppose you need that in you life.
I always need Truth.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,472



« Reply #448 on: April 28, 2012, 02:02:06 PM »

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

It won't make a difference, but here goes.
any specific needle in that haystack?
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #449 on: April 28, 2012, 02:11:20 PM »


I'm not mocking anything, I'm asking a question, which I'll repeat since you didn't really answer it--*How* would it be accomplished? And podkarpasta makes a good point in extending the question--I've always presumed that a corollary of the teachings on infallibility is that most Roman Catholic sincerely believe they will never need to remove a Pope for teaching heresy, so it would make sense not to have a process in place for something that can't happen--but what about dementia or blatant immorality?

Al Misry, not you, is the one who sets the tone of half-truth here that I abhor.  I am not upset with you at all and will do my best to answer.

If a pope is truly and genuinely a bad pope, then there is a canon which allows the pope to retire.  What has happened historically is that popes who are absolutely out of favor have been strongly encouraged to retire, and they have indeed done so.   It is a process that is discouraged but it can, has and could happen and for any variety of reasons that would include a plunge into heresy...and I do not mean a mistake or the expression of a personal opinion...I mean formal heresy where the man in the office would try to destroy the Church by taking it off the rails entirely.

I really have nothing more to add to it because anything that I do say will be torqued and twisted by others.

Mary

Logged

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 0.198 seconds with 72 queries.