Author Topic: Ranking of Patriarchs  (Read 2243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2018, 04:14:45 AM »
Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.  It took an Ecumenical Council to recognize the primacy of Constantinople, together with Rome, and it has no vice primate in line.

I’ve literally witnessed Orthodox here say Rome lost primacy because she went into heresy and that’s why Constantinople has it now. It’s seems EO don’t even agree on this matter.

The Bishop of Rome's name is no longer first in the diptychs, so I'd say he lost the primacy. But how we describe the position of the leader of a different faith isn't really something we'd view as important. I might think the Dalai Lama is really cool; Sharbel might not. This isn't a difference in our faith.

Primacy doesn’t mean the pope is some impeccable guru. This is what I mean about the errors spread here about Catholicism. It’s like you guys don’t even want to try to understand us. How many times do we have to correct this misconception yet it still gets stated over and over again.

We know that your concept of primacy doesn't meat the pope is an impeccable guru. What does it mean?

It seems to mean, in your interpretation of the Roman Catholic position, that he's someone you're supposed to be in communion with no matter what he does or teaches, which is a concept that goes against the our tradition.

It means we must hold fast to communion of Peter because where Peter is there is the church as St Jerome said. And YES he meant the Roman bishop when he said that. Or like St Irenaeus when he said it’s a matter of necessity in being communion and agreement with Rome. Or like St Optatus who said the Chair of Rome and those in communion with her are the true church and that’s the standard. Or when the tradition of the church established that nothing can be decided against the opinion of Rome and that no eccleasticatial canon or conciliar decision may have force without he consent of the Roman bishop. (St Jerome, St irenaeus,  St Optatus, St Damasu, Greek Church historian Socrates Scholasticus and St Anatolius)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2018, 04:16:45 AM »

In fact it seems whenever I correct you with WITH magisterial documents, conciliar procolomations and partristic evidence ...

Who gave you the authority to correct "WITH" magisterial documents? You cite a putative burden on Catholics to know about, read, and assent to Papal Encyclicals.  You're not the only one with a fairly good sized library at home and you're not the only one who has searched, Denzinger's, Spirago-Clarke, The Roman Catechism, Ott, the Faith of the Fathers, Robert Bellarmine, etc.  However, I have yet to read one single entry - not one- claiming that Catholics have any such duty to know about, read or even assent to Papal Encyclicals. Can you show me the Pope who placed this duty on the laity to know it?

Are the encyclicals you cite even addressed to laymen?

The fact of the matter is that Laymen do not have the duty to read papal encyclicals. In ordinary Catholic life, Church doctrine comes to the laity by means of the pastor. The pastor receives it from the bishop, and in your case the bishop receives it from the Pope.

Pope Leo XIII sums it up: "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.” (Apostolic Letter "Epistola Tua") - Pope Leo did not give this authority to Wandile!

We all must adhere to the teaching of the Church. How it gets passed down to us, is of secondary importance.  You may claim you "correct" with magisterial documents. You are among the laity. How can you yourself even be sure you understand the magisterial documents correctly to correct others? Some days, when I see your writings, I think it is you who grossly misunderstands the infallibility, immutability and indefectibility Rome has clearly spoken of herself and worse you think you possess her authority.

There’s something called catechisms too. Laymen are not barred by from reading magestirail documemts. Humane Vitaea was specifically written to and for everybody.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 04:17:06 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2018, 04:33:35 AM »
Quote from: Iconodule
Quote
What is EO primacy based on?

5th century geopolitics.

Meanwhile, the old canonical principle that derives its right from Apostolic institution remains untouched. The Church is not a human kingdom, therefore man has no right to change what the divine King of kings has established for Her. If in fact Rome once had the primacy but then "lost it", then there is no reason why Constantinople could not "lose it" either, then Alexandria, and/or Russia, and so on. Either the Church has a permanent Primacy or She doesn't.

If She doesn't, it's a free-for-all and anything goes, because anytime I disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch, I can claim he has "lost the primacy" or has exceeded his bounds and thus he is only a titular head at most.

If She does, then the Church still retains Her permanent primacy where Christ and the Apostles established it, viz. the See of Rome.

Actually within the Oriental Orthodox communion the concept of primacy doesn’t exist between the different traditions; it only exists to a very limited degree in the relations between, say, the Coptic Pope and the Ethiopian Church which used to be under his “omophorion” but which he granted autocephaly to, and later granted autocephaly to the Eritrean portion of that church, a controversial act to be sure.

There is no equivalent however of the kind of primatial relationship between Rome or Constantinople and the other churches.  This rather is a direct result of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, and in my opinion represents one of several severe errors made at Chalcedon, almost on a par with the unjust deposition of Pope Dioscorus.  The idea of a primacy does not appear to exist in the early church before Canon 28, except on occasion in the mind of some Roman archbishops, specifically Archbishop Victor, who attempted to personally suppress quartodecimianism but was told off by the Eastern churches; the Paschal celebration according to the computus instead had to wait until the Council of Nicea, convened and presided over by a neutral Christian emperor, to be implemented as an ecumenical standard.

You do know that all those churches that “told off” Pope St Victor at their synods held those synods at the request of St Victor. By the time of Nicaea most of those churches aligned with Pope Victors demands so it’s a bit incorrect to claim the ignored him. Most eventually followed through with his commands to change.
What is your proof that those synods were held at the request, let alone command, of St. Victor?

EO like to leave out a lot of details of that whole affair:

There was a debate over the date of Easter that occurred in Laodicea (a city of Asia) between Asiatics themselves, requiring some of their own to attempt to defend the Quartodeciman practice (Bishop Melito of Sardis). A contemporary bishop of Hierapolis, Claudius Apolinarius, wrote in protest to the Quartodeciman practice in response to this Eastern complication in Laodicea:

”“There are some now who, from ignorance, love to raise strife about these things, being guilty in this of a pardonable offence; for ignorance does not so much deserve blame as need instruction. And they say that on the fourteenth [of Nisan] the Lord ate the paschal lamb with his disciples, but that He himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread [i.e. the fifteenth of Nisan]; and they interpret Matthew as favoring their view from which it appears that their view does not agree with the law, and that the Gospels seem, according to them, to be at variance” (Chronicon Paschale)

Pope St. Victor was very aware of the variance between Asia and the consensus of the churches, and so requested synods to be held everywhere concerning the question. There was a synod held in Palestine under Theophilus of Caesarea, Narcissus of Jerusalem, a synod in Pontus under Palmas, another in Gaul under St. Irenaeus. Other bishops involved were the pastor of the church in Osrhoene,  Bacchylus of Corinth,  Cassius of Tyre, Clarus of Ptolemais, and our historical witness Eusebius of Caesarea also notes that there were:

”letters from many others who expressed the same opinion and judgement and cast the same vote. And the view [Roman tradition] which has been described above was accepted by them all” (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 23-25).

St. Clement, head of the school at Alexandria, published a summation of traditions that he collected and they all agreed with the position of Rome.

All these churches across East and West ruled in favor of celebrating Eastern on Sunday, the Lord’s day. Except the synod in Asia Minor under St. Polycrates of Ephesus. Rather than suggesting that the tradition was open to disagreement, Polycrates insisted in his letter to Pope Victor that the clerics that preceded him in Ephesus and in surrounding Asia all had :

”kept the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the to the gospel, never departing from it but obeying the rule of faith“

Notice here that the Synod of Asia Minor understood that the Quartodeciman practice to be part of the “rule of faith“, even though so many other churches around the world thought opposite. To suggest that the rest of the churches were deviant from the regula fidei was a mighty claim. Often times readers of this historical event find themselves directing their disgust with Pope Victor, not realizing this implication from Asia. In the same letter, Polycrates adds:

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord and have communed with brethren from all the world have examined every sacred scripture, am not daunted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said : ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.'”
 

Now, according to our historian Eusebius, the Asian synod had written this letter in response to Pope Victor who himself had requested Asia to hold a synod on the question. The letter states:

”I could name the bishops who are here assembled whom you requested me to summon and I did summon“.

Quote
Yes, they ignored him. Those who had been quartodecimian, continued to do so until Nicea I. St. Constantine the Holy Emperor and the Fathers of Nicea commanded the change, and they changed to the Paschalion of the Popes OF ALEXANDRIA.

Most changed, like I said, barring the synod of Asia Minor as shown above.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 04:38:26 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline noahzarc1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Examining Western Rite of Antiochan
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2018, 11:17:59 AM »
There’s something called catechisms too. Laymen are not barred by from reading magestirail documemts. Humane Vitaea was specifically written to and for everybody.

I never said they were barred from it. I never said they couldn't read them. I stated clearly, "Laymen don't have the duty to read papal encyclicals" and also "in ordinary Catholic life, Church doctrine comes to the laity by means of the pastor. The pastor receives it from the bishop, etc."  Pope Leo XIII stated, "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct."

The entire point of all of this is that you have Catholic laymen of all stripes, (conservative, trad, modernist) etc all dictating to the faithful what to believe, apparently claiming they know more than the hierarchy. Furthermore, they come with encyclicals and other documents, tying together random bits of information from all over and drawing final conclusions. It can be very intimidating and confusing for those in the laity who are not even familiar with these things. This is the power behind many of the trad movements. The minute you begin to talk to them, they start pulling out obscure quotes from Denzinger and encyclicals and worse they make laymen feel as though they were not properly catechized or that they are even Catholic altogether.

You at times do this same thing. You come at lifelong Eastern Orthodox with Papal Encyclicals, draw conclusions and argue against the East. Absent someone having a prior background in Rome's theology, you may think your position is superior, but at the end of the day, most people probably don't even know what you're referring to. So point being, go ahead and read your encyclicals. But when you say things like, "whenever I correct you with WITH magisterial documents, conciliar proclamations and partristic evidence," first know your audience, second know whether you even have this authority and third if Roman Catholics do not even have a duty to know these encyclicals do not think the Eastern Orthodox have a duty to be corrected by them.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2018, 11:27:26 AM »
Actually magisterial documents do have weight.
To you, perhaps, but only to you.  Yet, you just proved about your lack of engagement with those you purport to teach the truth of the Catholic Church.  As a matter of fact, it's a sign that you do it out of pride, rather than love.

It’s not veiled under piety. I don’t pretend to be pious. Im far from that. I’m a sinner and acknowledge sins. However it really does go both ways. What I said was very true about Mor. I apologize for the way and manner I went about it but doesn’t that Mor has a big problem with that kind of behavior. Talks down to people too much and assumes a role of authors,
Do you realize that you just doubled down on your passive aggressiveness?  Do you know what it means?  It means that you are using superficially nice words to poke insults at others.  Moreover, you use words commonly found in pious literature to veil your insults.  It permeates all your posts in this forum and everyone here has already realized this, except you. 

Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.  It took an Ecumenical Council to recognize the primacy of Constantinople, together with Rome, and it has no vice primate in line.
I’ve literally witnessed Orthodox here say Rome lost primacy because she went into heresy and that’s why Constantinople has it now. It’s seems EO don’t even agree on this matter.
It means the same as I said...

It means we must hold fast to communion of Peter because where Peter is there is the church as St Jerome said... Or like St Irenaeus when he said it’s a matter of necessity in being communion and agreement with Rome. Or like St Optatus who said the Chair of Rome and those in communion with her are the true church and that’s the standard...
Who is the pillar and foundation of Truth?  Hint: 1 Tim 3:15.

Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2018, 04:49:29 PM »
Quote
Or like St Irenaeus when he said it’s a matter of necessity in being communion and agreement with Rome. Or like St Optatus who said the Chair of Rome and those in communion with her are the true church and that’s the standard.
But you are not in communion with that Rome, you are in communion with modern Rome which holds different faith.

You are still not biting on my previous statement. Tell me more about this dude, who assembled a council with the solo purpose of declaring himself infallible before the world. Do you comprehend how bad this is ?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 04:58:01 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2018, 01:59:17 AM »
I think you are confusing the Pious Popes.  ;) Pope St. Pius X is the Champion against Modernism who authored Pascendi, the Oath against Modernism, and the Sainted Pope in Wandile's picture. Pope Bl. Pius IX is the Pope who convened the First Vatican Council, where the whole Church, in Ecumenical Council, proclaimed among other things, the Dogma of Ex Cathedra Papal Infallibility. There were also very important declarations against atheism, agnosticism and the like in Vatican I, that later formed the basis of much of the Oath against Modernism. The Catholic Church took fighting against the descent of civilization into atheism and secularism very seriously.

Quote from: Isa
Don't you mean Avignon?

No, the Popes who resided in Rome during the temporary GWS had better canonical rights and a clearer claim to being the validly elected Pontiff. However, the issue was satisfactorily resolved in due time when all sides agreed to resign, and a new Pope acceptable to all was elected the Sovereign Pontiff.

Quote
According to your Ultramontanist claims, the order would be Old Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople-which it never was.

The ancient canonical taxis was Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. This is explained clearly by Pope St. Damasus, who also explains the Apostolic origin of the primacy of the Roman Church. This trinal unity of sees deriving from St. Peter's authority (where Rome still had the headship) that reflected the Triune God's reign over His Church is the best and most ancient, and also closes the door to any form of Caesaropapism. But in later ages, other sees were given - with and by the consent of the Supreme See - patriarchal rights.

Quote from: Sharbel
Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.

But this begs the question, because you're assuming primacy is temporary and changeable. If primacy is permanent and immutable, as we hold, it is clearly intimately related to indefectiblity. The local Church that holds the primacy will never lose it, and this is what guarantees the universal Church's indefectibility.

If primacy is temporary, what is required for a Primate to lose his primacy or declared to have defected? At least an Ecumenical Council, perhaps?

Quote from: Platypus
Dominika's right, we're using the word primacy to mean very different things. Primacy, in the sense of the EP being pre-eminent, basically means he gets his name mentioned first.

Ok, so is that all that primacy means? To us, it means a Primate has the right and duty to appoint bishops, to oversee the affairs of the Churches, to pass judgments on disputed cases etc.

Quote
If you disagree with the EP, saying he has lost his primacy is meaningless. It's not a question of him being the One True Patriarch or not, because our ecclesiology doesn't work like yours.

But does the Primate have any special jurisdictional rights? Do important decisions have to be taken by him? Is he the centre of communion and the principle of unity in the Church? Etc. The resolution to these questions illuminate the relationship between the other local Churches and the Church that holds the primacy. It seems you are saying Primacy is no more than a honorific title, is that correct?

Edit: Greek Orthodox Priest Fr. Afanasieff has this to say on Primacy, "No one denies, today, that she has held a leading position, but we have still to ask what position it was and what was its nature. In other words, we started discussing the primacy of Rome before we raised the question: what is primacy itself? Can primacy—whether of Rome or of any other church— really exist in the Church? This is the really important question, and the answer, whether positive or negative, will help us to work out our own views of the Church of Rome. If we are to solve the problem of primacy within the Church, our starting point must be ecclesiology; i.e., we must ask, does the doctrine of the Church contain the idea of primacy (in its present or any other form), or exclude it altogether? This method can be used to solve problems of exegesis and of history too; it is really the most natural approach, for the problem of primacy is inherent in the doctrine of the Church. We can thus pose the problem of primacy in general, for Orthodox and Catholics alike. But we must not think of such a method as involving any renunciation (even provisional) of our confessional allegiances. That sort of thing would only be possible for a bad Orthodox or a bad Catholic. As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy."
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 02:06:26 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2018, 04:26:49 AM »
Quote
Or like St Irenaeus when he said it’s a matter of necessity in being communion and agreement with Rome. Or like St Optatus who said the Chair of Rome and those in communion with her are the true church and that’s the standard.
But you are not in communion with that Rome, you are in communion with modern Rome which holds different faith.

You are still not biting on my previous statement. Tell me more about this dude, who assembled a council with the solo purpose of declaring himself infallible before the world. Do you comprehend how bad this is ?

There is but one Rome.

Vatican I was called with papal infallibility not even on the schema.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2018, 04:30:24 AM »
Actually magisterial documents do have weight.
To you, perhaps, but only to you.  Yet, you just proved about your lack of engagement with those you purport to teach the truth of the Catholic Church.  As a matter of fact, it's a sign that you do it out of pride, rather than love.
They matter to anyone who wishes to discuss Catholicism.

You’re quite the judgmental one aren’t you? You need to stop doing that.

Quote
It’s not veiled under piety. I don’t pretend to be pious. Im far from that. I’m a sinner and acknowledge sins. However it really does go both ways. What I said was very true about Mor. I apologize for the way and manner I went about it but doesn’t that Mor has a big problem with that kind of behavior. Talks down to people too much and assumes a role of authors,
Do you realize that you just doubled down on your passive aggressiveness?  Do you know what it means?  It means that you are using superficially nice words to poke insults at others.  Moreover, you use words commonly found in pious literature to veil your insults.  It permeates all your posts in this forum and everyone here has already realized this, except you.
You don’t see the irony in all this you just said?

Quote
Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.  It took an Ecumenical Council to recognize the primacy of Constantinople, together with Rome, and it has no vice primate in line.
I’ve literally witnessed Orthodox here say Rome lost primacy because she went into heresy and that’s why Constantinople has it now. It’s seems EO don’t even agree on this matter.
It means the same as I said...
So there is primacy... in other words...
Quote
It means we must hold fast to communion of Peter because where Peter is there is the church as St Jerome said... Or like St Irenaeus when he said it’s a matter of necessity in being communion and agreement with Rome. Or like St Optatus who said the Chair of Rome and those in communion with her are the true church and that’s the standard...
Who is the pillar and foundation of Truth?  Hint: 1 Tim 3:15.
The church ofcourse. And where did St Irenaeus, St Optatus and St Jerome saywe must find it as a matter of necessity to know where church is?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2018, 04:36:24 AM »
There’s something called catechisms too. Laymen are not barred by from reading magestirail documemts. Humane Vitaea was specifically written to and for everybody.

I never said they were barred from it. I never said they couldn't read them. I stated clearly, "Laymen don't have the duty to read papal encyclicals" and also "in ordinary Catholic life, Church doctrine comes to the laity by means of the pastor. The pastor receives it from the bishop, etc."  Pope Leo XIII stated, "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct."
Nobody here has disputed any of this.

Quote
The entire point of all of this is that you have Catholic laymen of all stripes, (conservative, trad, modernist) etc all dictating to the faithful what to believe, apparently claiming they know more than the hierarchy.
So your post is off topic.

Quote
Furthermore, they come with encyclicals and other documents, tying together random bits of information from all over and drawing final conclusions. It can be very intimidating and confusing for those in the laity who are not even familiar with these things. This is the power behind many of the trad movements. The minute you begin to talk to them, they start pulling out obscure quotes from Denzinger and encyclicals and worse they make laymen feel as though they were not properly catechized or that they are even Catholic altogether.
Hence catechisms. The catechism is a magisterial document

Quote
You at times do this same thing. You come at lifelong Eastern Orthodox with Papal Encyclicals, draw conclusions and argue against the East
I use them to correct misconceptions about Catholicism here which are all too prevalent. The biggest example is the common mistake that Catholics teach original sin entails personal guilt. Like I said many Catholics, clergy and laymen, have complained about the falsehoods being spread about Catholicism here.

Quote
Absent someone having a prior background in Rome's theology, you may think your position is superior, but at the end of the day, most people probably don't even know what you're referring to. So point being, go ahead and read your encyclicals. But when you say things like, "whenever I correct you with WITH magisterial documents, conciliar proclamations and partristic evidence," first know your audience, second know whether you even have this authority and third if Roman Catholics do not even have a duty to know these encyclicals do not think the Eastern Orthodox have a duty to be corrected by them.

It’s amazing that If the audience is so unfamiliar with catholic texts that govern our faith and what we believe, why are EO here so quick to speak authoritatively about what we Catholics purportedly believe? You can’t have the both ways. If what you say is true then the EO should rather not mention Catholicism at all. How about that?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 04:38:06 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2018, 04:43:41 AM »
Quote
I think you are confusing the Pious Popes.  ;) Pope St. Pius X is the Champion against Modernism who authored Pascendi, the Oath against Modernism, and the Sainted Pope in Wandile's picture. Pope Bl. Pius IX is the Pope who convened the First Vatican Council, where the whole Church, in Ecumenical Council, proclaimed among other things, the Dogma of Ex Cathedra Papal Infallibility. There were also very important declarations against atheism, agnosticism and the like in Vatican I, that later formed the basis of much of the Oath against Modernism. The Catholic Church took fighting against the descent of civilization into atheism and secularism very seriously.
My apologies then, i accept your correction.

Quote
There is but one Rome.
Strange, i could count 4 Romes.
Orthodox Rome
Rome beginning slightly to diviate
Middle ages Rome
Novus Ordo Rome
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 04:57:19 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2018, 05:11:55 AM »
Quote from: Iconodule
Quote
What is EO primacy based on?

5th century geopolitics.

Meanwhile, the old canonical principle that derives its right from Apostolic institution remains untouched. The Church is not a human kingdom, therefore man has no right to change what the divine King of kings has established for Her. If in fact Rome once had the primacy but then "lost it", then there is no reason why Constantinople could not "lose it" either, then Alexandria, and/or Russia, and so on. Either the Church has a permanent Primacy or She doesn't.

If She doesn't, it's a free-for-all and anything goes, because anytime I disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch, I can claim he has "lost the primacy" or has exceeded his bounds and thus he is only a titular head at most.

If She does, then the Church still retains Her permanent primacy where Christ and the Apostles established it, viz. the See of Rome.

Actually within the Oriental Orthodox communion the concept of primacy doesn’t exist between the different traditions; it only exists to a very limited degree in the relations between, say, the Coptic Pope and the Ethiopian Church which used to be under his “omophorion” but which he granted autocephaly to, and later granted autocephaly to the Eritrean portion of that church, a controversial act to be sure.

There is no equivalent however of the kind of primatial relationship between Rome or Constantinople and the other churches.  This rather is a direct result of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, and in my opinion represents one of several severe errors made at Chalcedon, almost on a par with the unjust deposition of Pope Dioscorus.  The idea of a primacy does not appear to exist in the early church before Canon 28, except on occasion in the mind of some Roman archbishops, specifically Archbishop Victor, who attempted to personally suppress quartodecimianism but was told off by the Eastern churches; the Paschal celebration according to the computus instead had to wait until the Council of Nicea, convened and presided over by a neutral Christian emperor, to be implemented as an ecumenical standard.

If the antichalcedonians are a church, so is romancatholicsm, and you are wasting your time here bickering.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2018, 11:17:15 AM »
Quote from: Sharbel
Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.
But this begs the question, because you're assuming primacy is temporary and changeable. If primacy is permanent and immutable, as we hold, it is clearly intimately related to indefectiblity. The local Church that holds the primacy will never lose it, and this is what guarantees the universal Church's indefectibility.
Can there be primacy outside of the Church?  Which came first, the Church or the pope?  You're making an idol of the pope and of primacy.  Neither is essential to the Church, historically, biblically or theologically.

They matter to anyone who wishes to discuss Catholicism.
You come to an Orthodox forum and yet presumes to dictate the parameters of the discussion about your faith?

You don’t see the irony in all this you just said?
No, I'm being quite actively aggressive to your hypocrisy.

So there is primacy... in other words...
It doesn't mean what you think it means.  You read "primacy" and think "Pastor Aeternus".

And where did St Irenaeus, St Optatus and St Jerome saywe must find it as a matter of necessity to know where church is?
Who got to decide what they said is true and to what extent?  Was everything that they said fully accepted by the Church?  Who interpreted or limited the applicability of their sayings?

Hence catechisms. The catechism is a magisterial document
Then stop changing it!

I use them to correct misconceptions about Catholicism here which are all too prevalent. The biggest example is the common mistake that Catholics teach original sin entails personal guilt.
Trent did and anathematized anyone believing the contrary.  See my reply above.

Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2018, 11:30:17 AM »
Quote from: Sharbel
Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.
But this begs the question, because you're assuming primacy is temporary and changeable. If primacy is permanent and immutable, as we hold, it is clearly intimately related to indefectiblity. The local Church that holds the primacy will never lose it, and this is what guarantees the universal Church's indefectibility.
Can there be primacy outside of the Church?  Which came first, the Church or the pope?  You're making an idol of the pope and of primacy.  Neither is essential to the Church, historically, biblically or theologically.

No, there cannot be primacy outside the Church. We agree on that. But the true inference is not, "therefore, we can separate from the Church that holds the primacy whenever we like, claiming it has defected", but rather, "therefore, every local Church ought to remain in communion with the Church that holds the primacy". In this way, the whole Catholic Church remains one and primacy is perpetual.

Pope St. Damasus explains, "Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2018, 11:34:43 AM »
Can there be primacy outside of the Church?  Which came first, the Church or the pope?  You're making an idol of the pope and of primacy.  Neither is essential to the Church, historically, biblically or theologically.
No, there cannot be primacy outside the Church. We agree on that. But the true inference is not, "therefore, we can separate from the Church that holds the primacy whenever we like, claiming it has defected", but rather, "therefore, every local Church ought to remain in communion with the Church that holds the primacy". In this way, the whole Catholic Church remains one and primacy is perpetual.
Nope.  Rome fell into heresy and no Church should remain in communion with it.  Primacy is not essential to the Church, but the Apostolic Tradition is.  Lose the latter, lose the former.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2018, 06:50:10 PM »
Quote from: Sharbel
Rome didn't lose its primacy, but the Church lost Rome by its defection.
But this begs the question, because you're assuming primacy is temporary and changeable. If primacy is permanent and immutable, as we hold, it is clearly intimately related to indefectiblity. The local Church that holds the primacy will never lose it, and this is what guarantees the universal Church's indefectibility.
Can there be primacy outside of the Church?  Which came first, the Church or the pope?  You're making an idol of the pope and of primacy.  Neither is essential to the Church, historically, biblically or theologically.

They matter to anyone who wishes to discuss Catholicism.
You come to an Orthodox forum and yet presumes to dictate the parameters of the discussion about your faith?

You don’t see the irony in all this you just said?
No, I'm being quite actively aggressive to your hypocrisy.
If this is your active then wow because it’s quite passive to me.

Quote
So there is primacy... in other words...
It doesn't mean what you think it means.  You read "primacy" and think "Pastor Aeternus".
Not at all. But I guess you can read minds so hey Sharbel tell me what I’m thinking now.

Quote
And where did St Irenaeus, St Optatus and St Jerome saywe must find it as a matter of necessity to know where church is?
Who got to decide what they said is true and to what extent?  Was everything that they said fully accepted by the Church?  Who interpreted or limited the applicability of their sayings?
Go read the council of Chalcedon and letter of the legates that was accepted by the council. Go read the 6th council and the letter of St Agatho which was accepted by the council.

Quote
Hence catechisms. The catechism is a magisterial document
Then stop changing it!
Catechism change and get updated all the time so too the pronouncements of ecumenical councils like what happened with the 3rd, 4th and 5th council on the same matter. Dogmatics can’t change but theologumena in the catechism can. Your understanding of these matters surely isn’t so lacking. You do know these things right?

Quote
I use them to correct misconceptions about Catholicism here which are all too prevalent. The biggest example is the common mistake that Catholics teach original sin entails personal guilt.
Trent did and anathematized anyone believing the contrary.  See my reply above.

LOL and you say I don’t know my faith. “Guilt” used in Trent does not mean the same as how we use the word guilt today. It does not mean a personal guilt. The guilt means that we are conceived and born in a state of rejecting God, that is, without sanctifying grace. The punishment due to the sin is loss of eternal life. That is how all men are said to be “guilty” at conception even without personal fault. This is why we baptize infants.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 06:53:53 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2018, 05:51:04 AM »
Quote
Strange, i could count 4 Romes.
Orthodox Rome
Rome beginning slightly to diviate
Middle ages Rome
Novus Ordo Rome

Sadly these distinctions do not bear out in reality. Only in your thinking. There is but one Rome, one list of popes, one faith. Ironically you call us heretical for things St Leo was already saying during his time yet you venerate him as one of the “Orthodox popes”.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 05:51:28 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2018, 11:15:42 AM »
Quote

Sadly these distinctions do not bear out in reality. Only in your thinking. There is but one Rome, one list of popes, one faith.

Sadly? Your statement makes you sad ? I think i understad you. It is quite obviously false one and falsehood makes people sad.

There is a middle age tradition that persons who are not in communion with the pope are waste of space and deserve to die, may i ask you how does that compare with todays vatican ideas or with the first milenium when such ideas didnt even exist ?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 11:16:51 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2018, 12:13:48 PM »
Quote

Sadly these distinctions do not bear out in reality. Only in your thinking. There is but one Rome, one list of popes, one faith.

Sadly? Your statement makes you sad ? I think i understad you. It is quite obviously false one and falsehood makes people sad.
It’s sad for you.

Quote
There is a middle age tradition that persons who are not in communion with the pope are waste of space and deserve to die, may i ask you how does that compare with todays vatican ideas or with the first milenium when such ideas didnt even exist ?

There was a middle age tradition to persecute and imprison anyone who made communion with Rome. How does that compare with modern EOy?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 12:16:02 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2018, 12:25:42 PM »
Quote
There was a middle age tradition to persecute and imprison anyone who made communion with Rome. How does that compare with modern EOy?
Sure, when the Tsars return, they will lock up all the crooks and allow orthodox bishops only, NO more ecumenists or career bishops receiving globalist funds and spreading cocadoxy.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 12:29:29 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline noahzarc1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Examining Western Rite of Antiochan
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2018, 04:23:32 AM »
It’s amazing that If the audience is so unfamiliar with catholic texts that govern our faith and what we believe, why are EO here so quick to speak authoritatively about what we Catholics purportedly believe? You can’t have the both ways. If what you say is true then the EO should rather not mention Catholicism at all. How about that?
It has actually take me 2 days to respond, and believe it or not I have read this statement of yours probably 5 different times trying to see if I could figure out a response to what you're saying but actually it finally occurred to me I have no idea what you're saying. But I can say I certainly tried to understand it. So what exactly is your point here?

I have so many thoughts, but at the end of the day, there has to be a reason you are at an Orthodox forum daily? What is the real reason for that? Do you see yourself ultimately as the evangelist who is going to rescue Catholicism from the "misconceptions" of the Eastern Orthodox? I may be new to this forum, but I am not new to forums. The moderators here allow you quite a bit of latitude, which I think is fine honestly. However, I am just curious what your ultimate goal is and second, why would you expect Eastern Orthodox, on an Eastern Orthodox blog to not mention Catholicism?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 04:24:58 AM by noahzarc1 »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #66 on: November 08, 2018, 05:18:11 AM »
It’s amazing that If the audience is so unfamiliar with catholic texts that govern our faith and what we believe, why are EO here so quick to speak authoritatively about what we Catholics purportedly believe? You can’t have the both ways. If what you say is true then the EO should rather not mention Catholicism at all. How about that?
It has actually take me 2 days to respond, and believe it or not I have read this statement of yours probably 5 different times trying to see if I could figure out a response to what you're saying but actually it finally occurred to me I have no idea what you're saying. But I can say I certainly tried to understand it. So what exactly is your point here?
What I have said is very simple and not complicated at all. It’s just the logical end of your logic being applied back at you.

You said “You at times do this same thing. You come at lifelong Eastern Orthodox with Papal Encyclicals, draw conclusions and argue against the East” and I said in reply that “I use them to correct misconceptions about Catholicism here which are all too prevalent.”

So then you said : “ most people probably don't even know what you're referring to. So point being, go ahead and read your encyclicals. But when you say things like, "whenever I correct you with WITH magisterial documents, conciliar proclamations and partristic evidence," first know your audience...”

To which I said “It’s amazing that If the audience is so unfamiliar with catholic texts that govern our faith and what we believe, why are EO here so quick to speak authoritatively about what we Catholics purportedly believe? You can’t have the both ways. If what you say is true then the EO should rather not mention Catholicism at all. How about that?”

The crux being that since EO on this site have very little knowledge about the magisterial texts that govern our dogmatics, and I only quote them to correct misconceptions about Catholicism spread here (which you said I shouldn’t do because they aren’t familiar with such texts), then isn’t it only logical that with their lack of knowledge of things Catholic, they should rather refrain from speaking on Catholicism’s behalf and wait for the Catholics to teach their faith rather than promoting errors about Catholicism?

Quote
I have so many thoughts, but at the end of the day, there has to be a reason you are at an Orthodox forum daily? What is the real reason for that?
I was and am still bugged by how much error and misinformation is spread here about Catholicism that I felt he need to help the catholic presence here who are also trying, with me, to correct the falsehoods spread here about our faith.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #67 on: November 08, 2018, 05:19:09 AM »
Quote
There was a middle age tradition to persecute and imprison anyone who made communion with Rome. How does that compare with modern EOy?
Sure, when the Tsars return, they will lock up all the crooks and allow orthodox bishops only, NO more ecumenists or career bishops receiving globalist funds and spreading cocadoxy.
Okay Vanhyo.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #68 on: November 08, 2018, 10:28:38 AM »
The problem with quoting "magisterial documents" to correct perceived misconceptions of Catholicism is that the purported magisterial documents may or may not be authoritative at the present time.

Said another way, many people here can see past the polemics of the past that suggested the pope is the guarantor of unity and orthodoxy. Whatever Catholicism formerly had to say about such and such matter may not be what it currently says (and, even more likely, is not what it currently practices).

So the crux of the problem is that there exists a Catholicism of the "documents" that is at odds with the Catholicism of present reality. What other people are pointing out is that the vast majority of Catholics experience and believe the latter since the former has no actual outward manifestation.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2018, 10:37:41 AM »
During the recent death penalty revision all the trad Caths were rushing to show how magisterial documents are not really magisterial documents.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,805
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2018, 04:27:53 PM »
Quote
There was a middle age tradition to persecute and imprison anyone who made communion with Rome. How does that compare with modern EOy?
Sure, when the Tsars return, they will lock up all the crooks and allow orthodox bishops only, NO more ecumenists or career bishops receiving globalist funds and spreading cocadoxy.

To me Cocoadoxy is hot cocoa with marshmellows and whipped cream, a yummy wintery treat.  Or for something a little stronger, and cooler, kahlua with whipped milk and crushed ice.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2018, 06:10:36 PM »
During the recent death penalty revision all the trad Caths were rushing to show how magisterial documents are not really magisterial documents.

Anyone worth their salt would know that death penalty has always been theological opinion. It was on the same level as limbo.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2018, 06:13:50 PM »
The problem with quoting "magisterial documents" to correct perceived misconceptions of Catholicism is that the purported magisterial documents may or may not be authoritative at the present time.

Dogmatic ones always are authoritative. Most misconceptions spread on this site are in the realm of catholic dogma.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:14:11 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,216
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ruins of Constantinople, Met. of Atlanta
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2018, 06:20:17 PM »
Quote
There was a middle age tradition to persecute and imprison anyone who made communion with Rome. How does that compare with modern EOy?
Sure, when the Tsars return, they will lock up all the crooks and allow orthodox bishops only, NO more ecumenists or career bishops receiving globalist funds and spreading cocadoxy.

To me Cocoadoxy is hot cocoa with marshmellows and whipped cream, a yummy wintery treat.  Or for something a little stronger, and cooler, kahlua with whipped milk and crushed ice.
Maybe it's Coca-Coladoxy. "I'd like to buy the World Council of Churches a Coke."
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,805
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2018, 07:43:43 PM »
Quote
There was a middle age tradition to persecute and imprison anyone who made communion with Rome. How does that compare with modern EOy?
Sure, when the Tsars return, they will lock up all the crooks and allow orthodox bishops only, NO more ecumenists or career bishops receiving globalist funds and spreading cocadoxy.

To me Cocoadoxy is hot cocoa with marshmellows and whipped cream, a yummy wintery treat.  Or for something a little stronger, and cooler, kahlua with whipped milk and crushed ice.
Maybe it's Coca-Coladoxy. "I'd like to buy the World Council of Churches a Coke."

Have an ecumenical dialogue and a smile.  :)
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Online ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2018, 08:14:55 PM »
The problem with quoting "magisterial documents" to correct perceived misconceptions of Catholicism is that the purported magisterial documents may or may not be authoritative at the present time.

Dogmatic ones always are authoritative. Most misconceptions spread on this site are in the realm of catholic dogma.

Which ones are the dogmatic ones?
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #76 on: November 08, 2018, 11:07:49 PM »
LOL and you say I don’t know my faith. “Guilt” used in Trent does not mean the same as how we use the word guilt today. It does not mean a personal guilt. The guilt means that we are conceived and born in a state of rejecting God, that is, without sanctifying grace. The punishment due to the sin is loss of eternal life. That is how all men are said to be “guilty” at conception even without personal fault. This is why we baptize infants.
So, culpa doesn't mean guilt and guilt means what the word doesn't mean...

Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline noahzarc1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Examining Western Rite of Antiochan
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2018, 03:40:13 AM »
So then you said : “ most people probably don't even know what you're referring to. So point being, go ahead and read your encyclicals. But when you say things like, "whenever I correct you with WITH magisterial documents, conciliar proclamations and partristic evidence," first know your audience...”

To which I said “It’s amazing that If the audience is so unfamiliar with catholic texts that govern our faith and what we believe, why are EO here so quick to speak authoritatively about what we Catholics purportedly believe? You can’t have the both ways. If what you say is true then the EO should rather not mention Catholicism at all. How about that?”

My thoughts are part of an ongoing conversation, so I will remind you again of what I have said. "The fact of the matter is that Laymen do not have the duty to read papal encyclicals. In ordinary Catholic life, Church doctrine comes to the laity by means of the pastor. The pastor receives it from the bishop, and in your case the bishop receives it from the Pope." Then I cited Pope Leo XIII, "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.” (Apostolic Letter "Epistola Tua.') So again my friend, I said the faith came to the people through the priest, but I never said anyone was barred from reading them, just that they were not required to. To this you responded, "no one is disputing this."

I honestly do not follow every conversation you have with EO.  Therefore, I will assume (and from the very few I've seen) I can assume what the Eastern Orthodox probably are criticizing, is the actual faith as they are seeing laid out from the priests or the magisterium. Look Wandile, every Catholic apologist can lay out a clean, crisp, air tight theology by linking together this encyclical with that one and citing the catechism. However, you are also the one on here saying you realize the faith is much better exemplified and lived out in Africa as compared to Germany or the U.S. Why is that? This is precisely the argument we are having. You are not applying any logic back at me. The precise discussion we are having is that it is one thing to have "magisterial documents that lay out what Catholics believe" and it is another thing to look at how those magisterial documents are being lived out in the life of the Church altogether.  I am well aware of the fact you can place the church above criticism by going back to encyclicals and trying to portray that this is the reality of the church, or that the church even follows these encyclicals as decreed. However, the criticism you are dealing with, which you call "misconceptions" probably come out of people's own real experiences, trials and hurts. I commend your willingness to defend the Church, and no doubt there are many who can do it well from looking at Trent or a Catechism or an encyclical. Yes, by citing these, you may be able to clear up a "misconception" here or there, but by and large, it is not the be all end all to addressing problems, etc.

The crux being that since EO on this site have very little knowledge about the magisterial texts that govern our dogmatics, and I only quote them to correct misconceptions about Catholicism spread here (which you said I shouldn’t do because they aren’t familiar with such texts), then isn’t it only logical that with their lack of knowledge of things Catholic, they should rather refrain from speaking on Catholicism’s behalf and wait for the Catholics to teach their faith rather than promoting errors about Catholicism?
They may have little knowledge about the magisterial texts, but again, this does not mean they have little knowledge about the Church. You are trying to argue that the church is her magisterial texts and catechisms. In one regard, this is true, as they may lay out her governance and theology. However, how these texts are lived out is quite another foundational part of the church.

Again, previously I stated, "We all must adhere to the teaching of the Church. How it gets passed down to us, is of secondary importance."  Why do you think there are "misconceptions?" Is this because you think the EO just have nothing better to do than to slander Rome? That also seems quite fallacious. Your point is that one should refrain from speaking on Catholicism’s behalf and wait for the Catholics to teach their faith rather than promoting errors about Catholicism.  Who promotes these errors? Is it even a possibility that part of the promotion of the error comes from the Church saying one thing in encyclicals and catechisms and doing quite the opposite in daily life or on the national (or international) stage? I've told you this before, some of the biggest critics of Rome and/or misconceptions come from within your own organizations, not from without.  Demanding one should "refrain" while waiting on Catholics to teach it "or correct it" instead is like waiting for a government's "official explanation" of an otherwise obvious situation.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 03:40:30 AM by noahzarc1 »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2018, 04:31:41 AM »
The problem with quoting "magisterial documents" to correct perceived misconceptions of Catholicism is that the purported magisterial documents may or may not be authoritative at the present time.

Dogmatic ones always are authoritative. Most misconceptions spread on this site are in the realm of catholic dogma.

Which ones are the dogmatic ones?

The ones with dogmatic content and definitions.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2018, 04:33:29 AM »
LOL and you say I don’t know my faith. “Guilt” used in Trent does not mean the same as how we use the word guilt today. It does not mean a personal guilt. The guilt means that we are conceived and born in a state of rejecting God, that is, without sanctifying grace. The punishment due to the sin is loss of eternal life. That is how all men are said to be “guilty” at conception even without personal fault. This is why we baptize infants.
So, culpa doesn't mean guilt and guilt means what the word doesn't mean...



Someone must read the council of Carthage.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2018, 10:16:47 AM »
The problem with quoting "magisterial documents" to correct perceived misconceptions of Catholicism is that the purported magisterial documents may or may not be authoritative at the present time.

Dogmatic ones always are authoritative. Most misconceptions spread on this site are in the realm of catholic dogma.

Which ones are the dogmatic ones?

The ones with dogmatic content and definitions.

Mortalium Animos or Unitatis Redintegratio?
Unam Sanctam or Evangelii Gaudium?
Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae?
Familiaris Consortio or Amoris Laetitia?
Rerum Novarum or Laudato Si?
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2018, 10:32:54 AM »
During the recent death penalty revision all the trad Caths were rushing to show how magisterial documents are not really magisterial documents.

Anyone worth their salt would know that death penalty has always been theological opinion. It was on the same level as limbo.

So you have your own ideas of what constitutes dogma versus theological opinion, other serious Catholics have different ideas. Quite a few of them raised quite a fuss about the catechism change. That Dr. Feser guy argues that the permissibility of the death penalty is part of the infallible magisterium. Presumably they are not worth their salt.

Meanwhile my uncle, a Catholic priest, thinks hell is a theological opinion on the same level as limbo.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2018, 01:35:00 PM »
Quote from: Sharbel
Quote
No, there cannot be primacy outside the Church. We agree on that. But the true inference is not, "therefore, we can separate from the Church that holds the primacy whenever we like, claiming it has defected", but rather, "therefore, every local Church ought to remain in communion with the Church that holds the primacy". In this way, the whole Catholic Church remains one and primacy is perpetual.
Nope.  Rome fell into heresy and no Church should remain in communion with it.  Primacy is not essential to the Church, but the Apostolic Tradition is.  Lose the latter, lose the former.

Incorrect. The Apostolic Primacy is the guarantee of possessing the Apostolic Tradition. The Church which holds the primacy is the one Church that is truly Apostolic in every sense, and therefore that Church is the centre of communion for the whole universal Church.

Constaninopolitan Caesaropapism completely confused the issue for some. But as Pope St. Damasus says God Himself established the primacy of the Roman Church, it follows that man cannot change what Christ and the Apostles have established in the Church.

Reread "the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior", and "the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord" and "The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that."

If the Roman Church has neither stain or blemish, as Pope Damasus states, there is no need to separate from Her communion.

What independent proof can you give that some other Church than Rome has the primacy? And which Church is that, precisely? Is it Constantinople? Moscow? Alexandria? Who decides? The Apostolic origin is the only safe and sure rule, and the ancient canonical one.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,805
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #83 on: November 09, 2018, 01:57:10 PM »
LOL and you say I don’t know my faith. “Guilt” used in Trent does not mean the same as how we use the word guilt today. It does not mean a personal guilt. The guilt means that we are conceived and born in a state of rejecting God, that is, without sanctifying grace. The punishment due to the sin is loss of eternal life. That is how all men are said to be “guilty” at conception even without personal fault. This is why we baptize infants.
So, culpa doesn't mean guilt and guilt means what the word doesn't mean...




Sing to the sailors, on the floating fortress,
Sing to the soldiers, on the battlefeild,
Sing to the airmen, in the burning azure,
Sing to the farmers, rising yields!

We are the children, builders of the future,
And we the children swear to thee,
Local devotion,
Fairless devotion,
And to die with dignity!

Sing to the faithful members of the party!
Sing to the party policy!
Sing to our country, mighty Oceania!
Land of peace and victory!


Fun fact: the Inquisition and the Catholic redefinition of certain words after the schism were among the inspirations for 1984 (along with Stalinism and George Orwell’s own experiences as a policeman in Colonial Burma).   So the example of Newspeak, Doublethink, and the famous 2 + 2 = 5 dialogue is directly relevant.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,805
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #84 on: November 09, 2018, 01:59:54 PM »
Quote from: Sharbel
Quote
No, there cannot be primacy outside the Church. We agree on that. But the true inference is not, "therefore, we can separate from the Church that holds the primacy whenever we like, claiming it has defected", but rather, "therefore, every local Church ought to remain in communion with the Church that holds the primacy". In this way, the whole Catholic Church remains one and primacy is perpetual.
Nope.  Rome fell into heresy and no Church should remain in communion with it.  Primacy is not essential to the Church, but the Apostolic Tradition is.  Lose the latter, lose the former.

Incorrect. The Apostolic Primacy is the guarantee of possessing the Apostolic Tradition. The Church which holds the primacy is the one Church that is truly Apostolic in every sense, and therefore that Church is the centre of communion for the whole universal Church.

Constaninopolitan Caesaropapism completely confused the issue for some. But as Pope St. Damasus says God Himself established the primacy of the Roman Church, it follows that man cannot change what Christ and the Apostles have established in the Church.

Reread "the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior", and "the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord" and "The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that."

If the Roman Church has neither stain or blemish, as Pope Damasus states, there is no need to separate from Her communion.

What independent proof can you give that some other Church than Rome has the primacy? And which Church is that, precisely? Is it Constantinople? Moscow? Alexandria? Who decides? The Apostolic origin is the only safe and sure rule, and the ancient canonical one.

There is no authentic primacy.  Rome asserted in ancient times it had a primacy, on rare occasions, for example, when Archbishop Victor tried to impose his will on Eastern churches not under his jurisdiction, but even then, in the second century, the rest of the church disagreed and his own bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons told him off over the affair if memory serves.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #85 on: November 11, 2018, 04:23:48 AM »
During the recent death penalty revision all the trad Caths were rushing to show how magisterial documents are not really magisterial documents.

Anyone worth their salt would know that death penalty has always been theological opinion. It was on the same level as limbo.

So you have your own ideas of what constitutes dogma versus theological opinion, other serious Catholics have different ideas. Quite a few of them raised quite a fuss about the catechism change. That Dr. Feser guy argues that the permissibility of the death penalty is part of the infallible magisterium. Presumably they are not worth their salt.

Meanwhile my uncle, a Catholic priest, thinks hell is a theological opinion on the same level as limbo.

The CDF said as much about death penalty. Death penalty hasn’t nowhere been defined in a conliar context or by papal aurhity. It’s has always been the discussion of theologians.

Your uncle is wrong. Hell is syraight from scripture and has been dogmatically defined multiple times in ecumenical councils and papal decrees. The Catholic Church has clear structures which issue our teaching. The average priest is not a standard of faith on his own. That’s why they are given catechisms.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 04:25:52 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #86 on: November 11, 2018, 04:34:02 AM »
The problem with quoting "magisterial documents" to correct perceived misconceptions of Catholicism is that the purported magisterial documents may or may not be authoritative at the present time.

Dogmatic ones always are authoritative. Most misconceptions spread on this site are in the realm of catholic dogma.

Which ones are the dogmatic ones?

The ones with dogmatic content and definitions.

Mortalium Animos or Unitatis Redintegratio?
Unam Sanctam or Evangelii Gaudium?
Uninitatis Rendintegratio and Evangeli Gaudium are disciplinary documents. Vatican II specifically said it did not employ the dogmatic teaching authority of the church.

Quote
Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae?
Both

Quote
Familiaris Consortio or Amoris Laetitia?
The former is dogmatic, the other pastoral. This is easy. Amorim Laetitia on its face doesn’t even say anything except deliberately being ambiguous in the 8th chapter. Sadly the Dubia has not been answered and I don’t think Pope Francis wants to answer it. Canon law on divorce and remarriage has remained in tact and untouched. If the change were effected canon law would have to be rewritten on this matter.

Quote
Rerum Novarum or Laudato Si?
Matters on economics and politics. Not dogmatic in either case.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 04:36:01 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #87 on: November 11, 2018, 04:40:19 AM »
Quote from: Sharbel
Quote
No, there cannot be primacy outside the Church. We agree on that. But the true inference is not, "therefore, we can separate from the Church that holds the primacy whenever we like, claiming it has defected", but rather, "therefore, every local Church ought to remain in communion with the Church that holds the primacy". In this way, the whole Catholic Church remains one and primacy is perpetual.
Nope.  Rome fell into heresy and no Church should remain in communion with it.  Primacy is not essential to the Church, but the Apostolic Tradition is.  Lose the latter, lose the former.

Incorrect. The Apostolic Primacy is the guarantee of possessing the Apostolic Tradition. The Church which holds the primacy is the one Church that is truly Apostolic in every sense, and therefore that Church is the centre of communion for the whole universal Church.

Constaninopolitan Caesaropapism completely confused the issue for some. But as Pope St. Damasus says God Himself established the primacy of the Roman Church, it follows that man cannot change what Christ and the Apostles have established in the Church.

Reread "the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior", and "the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord" and "The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that."

If the Roman Church has neither stain or blemish, as Pope Damasus states, there is no need to separate from Her communion.

What independent proof can you give that some other Church than Rome has the primacy? And which Church is that, precisely? Is it Constantinople? Moscow? Alexandria? Who decides? The Apostolic origin is the only safe and sure rule, and the ancient canonical one.

There is no authentic primacy.  Rome asserted in ancient times it had a primacy, on rare occasions, for example, when Archbishop Victor tried to impose his will on Eastern churches not under his jurisdiction, but even then, in the second century, the rest of the church disagreed and his own bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons told him off over the affair if memory serves.

That is NOT how it happened. As I showed St Victor ordered those churches to hold synods to discuss the matter and all but the one synod in Asia Minor agreed to pope St Victors Easter date. The Asia Minor synod eventually agreed to St Victor’s decision at Nicaea. St Irenause did not “tell him off” but pleaded with him rather to not excommunicate them but rather just let them be for the sake of peace in the church. You  have very “interesting”  telling history.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 04:41:31 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #88 on: Yesterday at 11:54:17 AM »
You left out the part where Pope Victor excommunicated those who disagreed with his decision, and the other bishops refused to follow suit. That in itself proves that Papal supremacy was not accepted then.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Ranking of Patriarchs
« Reply #89 on: Yesterday at 02:14:09 PM »
That is NOT how it happened. As I showed

No, you did not.
St Victor ordered those churches to hold synods to discuss the matter
No, he did not. That is NOT how it happened.
and all but the one synod in Asia Minor agreed to pope St Victors Easter date. The Asia Minor synod eventually agreed to St Victor’s decision at Nicaea.

No, they did not.
St Irenause did not “tell him off”
Yes, he did.
but pleaded with him rather to not excommunicate them but rather just let them be for the sake of peace in the church. You  have very “interesting”  telling history.
you have a powerful projector
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 02:23:46 PM by ialmisry »
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