OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 03:37:37 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 11153 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 #45 on: April 23, 2012, 09:21:42 PM »


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

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

Christ is Risen!

M.

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

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said:

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

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

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's definitely a tricky issue.

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

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

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

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.  We cannot speak of their personal guilt at all, but we can point to the fact that they are tearing away at the Church, with purpose and forethought.  To suggest that they move along is NOT such a far stretch of good will for the good order of the Body of Christ.  IF you believe that Orthodoxy is a sister Church then there is every good reason to wish someone well when they move from the Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church. 
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2012, 09:39:38 PM »


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

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

Christ is Risen!

M.

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

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said:

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

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

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's definitely a tricky issue.

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

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

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

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2012, 10:48:15 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 10:51:03 PM by MarkosC » Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2012, 10:58:40 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this?

That's a good question. I don't have a good answer at the moment -- although that could just be because it's late. Smiley I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2012, 07:34:44 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count).

I quite take your point that, just because some people say it, doesn't necessarily "count". That was kind of my point too: there are people who throw the word around pretty freely.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2012, 10:00:17 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 10:00:52 AM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2012, 10:18:11 AM »

Politely-encouraging-Catholics-to-leave is alright, I suppose, as long as it's limited to those already implicitly excommunicated. The problem is that it is rarely so limited.

Are supporters of the Zoghby Initiative automatically excommunicated? I should certainly think they aren't.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2012, 10:27:09 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: April 24, 2012, 10:57:28 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2012, 11:01:12 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

Interesting.  Thanks.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2012, 11:03:20 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

Interesting.  Thanks.
In my view this is on par with modernist, dissenting, latin bishops.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2012, 11:17:22 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one. 

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

Interesting.  Thanks.
In my view this is on par with modernist, dissenting, latin bishops.

I'll take your word for that.  I have little familiarity with the Melkites, their understanding of the faith, and what they do and do not "accept" or reject of Vatican I or anything else regarding their relationship with Rome.  In fact, they are barely on my radar at all, unfortunately.  The nearest Melkite parish to me is probably at least 2 hours away making it, for all intents and purposes, inaccessible.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 11:22:42 AM 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2012, 11:20:54 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2012, 11:25:06 AM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.

So, does that explain why the initiative is dead in the water?  I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all.  Most unfortunately, that is.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #59 on: April 24, 2012, 11:35:40 AM »

I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all. 

None-at-all is my understanding.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2012, 12:00:48 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradictiong?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2012, 12:04:02 PM »

Is there any danger/hope of Melkites returning back to the Antiochian EO church?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2012, 12:04:33 PM »

I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all. 

None-at-all is my understanding.

I know they don't see it that way, but.....their loss.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 24, 2012, 12:17:11 PM »

The Melkites have tacit acceptance from Rome.  They NEVER attack the Roman rite, nor do they try to tear down any other particular Church...Orthodox Catholic or Catholic.  They never suggest that anyone else MUST do it their way or the others are not in communion with them, nor are they legitimate Church...they NEVER say those things. 

A dissenter tries to change by force...and no...I don't mean violent force.   Bishops ordaining female priests is force...non-violent force.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #64 on: April 24, 2012, 12:32:59 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #65 on: April 24, 2012, 01:03:27 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.
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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2012, 01:08:00 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.

How? Spiritual schizophrenia is how.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2012, 01:14:58 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.


Life's just full of paradoxes, ain't it  Cheesy?

Seriously, though...*do* the Melkites reject Papal supremacy?  And, which of their dogmas does Rome (I assume [eek!] you mean Rome?) reject as false?
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2012, 01:31:27 PM »

This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? 

Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #69 on: April 24, 2012, 02:21:55 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.


Life's just full of paradoxes, ain't it  Cheesy?

Seriously, though...*do* the Melkites reject Papal supremacy?  And, which of their dogmas does Rome (I assume [eek!] you mean Rome?) reject as false?

I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy. That's what my 3rd paragraph above is about--if they do not, then how can they be in communion with Rome; if they do then how can they be in communion with Orthodoxy or even want to be in communion with Orthodoxy (so, no, the part you assume refers to Rome is actually referring to Orthodoxy and our rejection of Papal Supremacy)

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
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 #70 on: April 24, 2012, 02:22:59 PM »

This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? 

Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.


I realize this is a short answer but it doesn't even being to answer my question.

I (and Orthodoxy in general) completely agree with your statement. Numerous times on this forum I have pointed out that
a) One can believe the Earth is flat, and be Orthodox.
b) One can believe that St. Constantine was not a saint but an opportunistic tyrant whose
glorification was completely political, and be Orthodox
c) One can believe that the body of the Mother of God was not taken up into heave, and still be Orthodox
In all 3 case I, and an overwhelming majority of Orthodox, believe the person is wrong and denying a truth--but it does not rise to the level of heresy.

But that's because all the above are *not* dogma. Isn't the whole point of dogma that these are the beliefs which it is *not* okay to be wrong about?
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: April 24, 2012, 03:57:30 PM »


I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy.

There is every possibility that the Melkite primate and bishops do not understand primacy in the same ugly way so many Orthodox see it.

 Wink
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 #72 on: April 24, 2012, 04:14:56 PM »


I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy.

There is every possibility that the Melkite primate and bishops do not understand primacy in the same ugly way so many Orthodox see it.

 Wink

Change of subject. The issue in question is not 'primacy' whose exact meaning is certainly debated among Orthodox and in ecumenical consultations, but 'supremacy' as defined by V1:
Quote
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.  --Pastor aeternus 3.9

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2012, 04:20:15 PM »


I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy.

There is every possibility that the Melkite primate and bishops do not understand primacy in the same ugly way so many Orthodox see it.

 Wink

Change of subject. The issue in question is not 'primacy' whose exact meaning is certainly debated among Orthodox and in ecumenical consultations, but 'supremacy' as defined by V1:
Quote
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.  --Pastor aeternus 3.9



In order to force a discussion of this particular part of the document, one needs then discuss it in light of the fact that the very same document says that papal power and authority is not to take the place of episcopal power.

John Paul II asked the Orthodox to take part in a discussion of the meaning of papal primacy in that light and in the potentiality for resumed communion.

So far all I've heard is Orthodox believers howling about what they THINK it means...Pardon if I am not impressed.

Apparently the pope and the Melkites understand one another. 

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #74 on: April 24, 2012, 05:07:28 PM »

This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? 

Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.


I realize this is a short answer but it doesn't even being to answer my question.

I (and Orthodoxy in general) completely agree with your statement. Numerous times on this forum I have pointed out that
a) One can believe the Earth is flat, and be Orthodox.
b) One can believe that St. Constantine was not a saint but an opportunistic tyrant whose
glorification was completely political, and be Orthodox
c) One can believe that the body of the Mother of God was not taken up into heave, and still be Orthodox
In all 3 case I, and an overwhelming majority of Orthodox, believe the person is wrong and denying a truth--but it does not rise to the level of heresy.

But that's because all the above are *not* dogma. Isn't the whole point of dogma that these are the beliefs which it is *not* okay to be wrong about?

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 24, 2012, 05:20:17 PM »

The primary purpose of dogma in the Catholic Church is to define a teaching or rather a portion of a teaching that has been in dispute for some time.

The type of assent require for a teaching, roughly, fall into three categories:  the assent of faith, religious assent and intellectual assent.  The assent of faith means that you do your best to believe simply as an act of faith.  You don't try to understand it or make it fit into some kind of religious system, but simply accept it as true because the Church teaches it as a truth of revelation.

It does NOT assess the salvation of believers based upon how well they perform in all three categories.

The way to remain in communion in the papal Church is simply NOT to attack the teachings of the Church...any of them.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #76 on: April 24, 2012, 06:29:39 PM »

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.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #77 on: April 24, 2012, 06:31:59 PM »

So, all of you who disagree with the Zoghby Initiative, do any of you believe that its supporters are automatically excommunicated? I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I'd rather ask than assume.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,682


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #78 on: April 24, 2012, 08:10:02 PM »

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?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
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: 37,483



« Reply #79 on: April 24, 2012, 08:17:09 PM »

I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all. 

None-at-all is my understanding.

I know they don't see it that way, but.....their loss.
He who loses his life saves 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
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: 37,483



« Reply #80 on: April 24, 2012, 08:29:45 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2012, 08:32:28 PM »

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 08:33:13 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2012, 08:42:44 PM »

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.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2012, 08:45:49 PM »

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

HuhHuhHuh

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

As far as I know, Melkite are free to promote the Zoghby Initiative and are not excommunicated for doing so. That was my original point.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2012, 09:12:39 PM »

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

To REALLY be fair, you keep asking for some sort of list from all the wrong places, without realizing that you miss the point of ex cathedra statements entirely. 

You also think that "ex cathedra" is the ONLY time some statement or teaching MUST be believed.

You keep basing your understanding of Catholic teaching on what the laity says or what some secular priest in a classroom has said to you, or what you THINK he has said to you.

To REALLY be fair, you are not an expert on Catholic teaching.

M.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,939


"My god is greater."


« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2012, 09:16:06 PM »

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... Wink  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  Embarrassed

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #86 on: April 24, 2012, 09:21:45 PM »

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
b) The Melkites do not accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they are acceptable to Rome--without that meaning that Rome doesn't actually take its own dogmas very seriously? (unless you're hanging it on the technicality that the passage says 'says' and as long as the Melkites don't *say* they don't accept it, or actually act as if they don't accept it then that's okay?--although that gets back to why anyone would think that that would be acceptable to Orthodoxy)

I'm not saying those are the only paths--I'm saying they are the only ones that I can see and asking for an explanation of what I'm missing.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #87 on: April 24, 2012, 09:32:31 PM »

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: April 24, 2012, 09:40:31 PM »

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

If the Melkites "agree" with Papal Supremacy then by definition they "agree" with papal supremacy.

The question is NOT one of DOGMA but one of MEANING!!
Logged

MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #89 on: April 25, 2012, 12:44:17 AM »

I do not represent the Melkite Church, and I don't have the time to address everything here this morning.  

But IMO Mary's respones are on the mark here.  

Finally, re:

So, all of you who disagree with the Zoghby Initiative, do any of you believe that its supporters are automatically excommunicated? I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I'd rather ask than assume.

This is impossible.  Again, Patriarch Gregory was one of the signers of the so-called initiative (which I think was premature and more useful as a statement than anything practical) and has gone on the record wishing that more could be done to implement it.  Rome knows this.  Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone) and in fact has concelebrated with the Pope on several occasions, to include being the primary concelebrant at the Pope's enthronement Mass.  

To think that a Patriarch who concelebrated with the Pope, especially at a Mass like this, was excommunicated, atuomatically or otherwise, is ridiculous.  

It would also suggest to me that Rome thinks differently from whatever theology would generate a position like that in the quote.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 12:45:38 AM by MarkosC » Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
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 0.245 seconds with 72 queries.