The Greek Orthodox Churches

[mortify]

[quote name='tionif' post='1787135' date='Feb 21 2009, 02:05 AM']Which one is right, which one is wrong, who will ever know?[/quote]

Most will find out when they die.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1787012' date='Feb 20 2009, 08:32 PM']It is interesting that your most recent post did not address your error as it concerns the ordination married men as priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches in America. The Vatican continues to hold that it is not permitted unless – on a case by case basis – the Eparch who is going to perform the ordination first seeks a dispensation from the curia, even though this "practice" is contrary to our tradition. Why should the Eastern Catholic Churches in America have to contact Rome before ordaining a priest? Actions like this are what will prevent any rapprochement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.[/quote]

Sorry I addressed it in an edit, it was something that I forgot to post at first and realized upon re-examining my post.


Why should the Eastern Catholic Churches in America have to contact Rome? This is to my understanding and only second hand knowledge: Because the Magisterium came out with a document that restricted them and they are still under obedience to the magisterium because it isn't the magisterium of the western Church but the Church universal. The document of course should have never restricted them and it is to my understanding (although I could quite possibly be vastly wrong) that the main intention of the document was *not* a restriction on the east and only secondarily did so... but like I said, could quite possibly be wrong on that.

Now to do so however, is disobedience, EVEN though it breaks tradition. It is, one might say, a sort of persecution that the east is currently experiencing from the Church herself, like many saints did.

You still have yet to affirm or deny that there was a dispensation offered by John Paul II. If there was one offered, why was it not accepted? Why did the east not jump on the chance to enter back into the tradition that had been stripped of them?


Apo,
You seem to think that there is a gap between the east and west in the realm of Authority and that the Holy Father does not have the authority to interfere with any matter that pertains to eastern tradition. If the Holy Father does not have the authority to do so, it would seem that he is not the Prince of the Apostles, but rather back to first among equals and that he really only deals with the west. If the Holy Father does have the authority to do so, then would it not be disobedience to break restrictions on ordination of married priests? Is the west better then the east, by no means! The west has sadly lost a lot of it's beauty and become lax in many area's, such as the use of canola oil for a chrism mass, and would have a lot to gain from looking at the east. Is the east better then the west? Of course not. Are the two separate? Yes and no... it is the One Church.

[tionif]

[quote name='mortify' post='1787146' date='Feb 21 2009, 02:16 AM']Most will find out when they die.[/quote]

So, basically, correct me if I am wrong, but when people die and go to hell, they're going to wish they were Catholic, right?



God doesn't give the spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and of a sound mind.

Your talk is fear, pure and simple.

You're just like the enviornmentalists who say we have to do something in the next ten years or we're going to die.

Edited February 21, 2009 by tionif

[Slappo]

[quote name='tionif' post='1787179' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:09 PM']So, basically, correct me if I am wrong, but when people die and go to hell, they're going to wish they were Catholic, right?



God doesn't give the spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and of a sound mind.

Your talk is fear, pure and simple.

You're just like the enviornmentalists who say we have to do something in the next ten years or we're going to die.[/quote]

...He said nothing about fear...
All he said was that when we die.... we're going to find out who was right. And when people die and go to hell according to Catholicism, that is part of God's mercy, for to give them heaven would be even more painful then hell to those whom do not love God.

It'd be like having to go give an eternal kiss to Aunt Gurta the Slobberer except infinity times worse... (no offense to those who have an aunt named Gurta... or those named Gurta...)

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1787130' date='Feb 21 2009, 02:00 AM']Ultimately there is only one true Church.[/quote]


yes, a gnostic sect based on kittiology.

Unfortunatly I can't say any more to the unenlightened

[tionif]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1787186' date='Feb 21 2009, 03:19 AM']...He said nothing about fear...
All he said was that when we die.... we're going to find out who was right. And when people die and go to hell according to Catholicism, that is part of God's mercy, for to give them heaven would be even more painful then hell to those whom do not love God.

It'd be like having to go give an eternal kiss to Aunt Gurta the Slobberer except infinity times worse... (no offense to those who have an aunt named Gurta... or those named Gurta...)[/quote]


Ummm.

He didn't say fear, but even what you say is that if you're not Catholic, the one true church, you are going to be sent to Hell by God because you don't belong to that church.

That, of course, is a fear tactic. Do as I say, believe as I believe, or I am going to beaver dam you for not agreeing with me.

Which, of course, goes down to the spirit of fear. Those who don't have the spirit of God will cower in fear, and accept what someone has to say to them - let me tell you how to think, behave, and believe.

Those who have the spirit of God, who live with the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind, find such things humourous to us. I can think for myself, and I can see right through his lies and see the truth of God's love, his grace for all believers, and we will all enjoy heaven.

For mortify, he's the Catholic exclusive club of heaven, and let all the others burn in hell.

The reason I see through him is because I live standing by my little screen name.

[Ziggamafu]

I'm still wrapping my mind around the rejection of the last 14 councils as being ecumenical - and by extension, infallible...and how that is a permissible view.

[Slappo]

[quote name='tionif' post='1787197' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:55 PM']Ummm.

He didn't say fear, but even what you say is that if you're not Catholic, the one true church, you are going to be sent to Hell by God because you don't belong to that church.

That, of course, is a fear tactic. Do as I say, believe as I believe, or I am going to beaver dam you for not agreeing with me.

Which, of course, goes down to the spirit of fear. Those who don't have the spirit of God will cower in fear, and accept what someone has to say to them - let me tell you how to think, behave, and believe.

Those who have the spirit of God, who live with the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind, find such things humourous to us. I can think for myself, and I can see right through his lies and see the truth of God's love, his grace for all believers, and we will all enjoy heaven.

For mortify, he's the Catholic exclusive club of heaven, and let all the others burn in hell.

The reason I see through him is because I live standing by my little screen name.[/quote]

Lol... except Catholic's don't teach that everyone else goes to hell.... you lose.

[mortify]

[quote name='tionif' post='1787197' date='Feb 21 2009, 03:55 AM']For mortify, he's the Catholic exclusive club of heaven, and let all the others burn in hell.[/quote]

You're putting words in my mouth.

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1787188' date='Feb 21 2009, 03:28 AM']yes, a gnostic sect based on kittiology.[/quote]

I know you're joking, but the Truth must be visible and so the true Church must also be visible. It can't be a secret society of Gnostics meeting in a basement.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1787159' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:40 PM']You still have yet to affirm or deny that there was a dispensation offered by John Paul II. If there was one offered, why was it not accepted? Why did the east not jump on the chance to enter back into the tradition that had been stripped of them?[/quote]
As I said before, you tend to see only what you want to see when you read my posts, because I have denied already that such a dispensation (i.e., from the prohibition that was forced upon the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America back in the 1920s) was offered. So let me repeat what I said again:

"Finally, as far as Pope John Paul II removing restrictions on married priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches in America is concerned, [b]your comment is in error[/b], because when the Ruthenian Metropolia sent its particular Church canons to Rome, [b]the Pope rejected the canons permitting married priests[/b], and said that the Metropolia would have to request a specific dispensation every time it wanted to ordain a married man as a presbyter."

Sadly the Ruthenian Metropolia has accepted this restriction, even though it is contrary to our tradition, but happily the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church simply ignore Rome on this issue and ordain married men without requesting any dispensations from the Curia.

[Apotheoun]

The article linked below is a good read, and should help a Western Christian to understand better the synodal ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox):

[url="http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/church_studies/reese/ec/ec-9fahey.htm"][u]Eastern Synodal Traditions: Pertinence for Western Collegial Institutions[/u][/url]

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1787313' date='Feb 21 2009, 10:01 AM']As I said before, you tend to see only what you want to see when you read my posts, because I have denied already that such a dispensation (i.e., from the prohibition that was forced upon the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America back in the 1920s) was offered. So let me repeat what I said again:

"Finally, as far as Pope John Paul II removing restrictions on married priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches in America is concerned, [b]your comment is in error[/b], because when the Ruthenian Metropolia sent its particular Church canons to Rome, [b]the Pope rejected the canons permitting married priests[/b], and said that the Metropolia would have to request a specific dispensation every time it wanted to ordain a married man as a presbyter."

Sadly the Ruthenian Metropolia has accepted this restriction, even though it is contrary to our tradition, but happily the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church simply ignore Rome on this issue and ordain married men without requesting any dispensations from the Curia.[/quote]

Two things, how is rejecting the requirement of getting a dispensation before ordaining NOT disobedience. The Eastern Church still must submit to the Supreme Pontiff. AND If it IS disobedience, how can you morally advocate such action?

Also: I said I don't know the content of said dispensation that was offered. I'll find out more information in the next couple days and get you exact sources. It could be that the Ruthenians did not meet the requirements the Pope asked for, so the fact that the Ruthenians got the request denied does not deny the offer of a dispensation. Please provide a source for the Ruthenians requesting and getting denied.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1787374' date='Feb 21 2009, 12:17 PM']Two things, how is rejecting the requirement of getting a dispensation before ordaining NOT disobedience. The Eastern Church still must submit to the Supreme Pontiff. AND If it IS disobedience, how can you morally advocate such action?[/quote]
It is only disobedience if one accepts the false idea that the Pope governs the Eastern Catholic Churches as he governs the Roman Church, but of course – as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, who is also a successor of St. Peter, has pointed out on several occasions – the Pope does not govern the Eastern Churches.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

tionif, you are off topic. if you have anything to say about the relations of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, you may do so. I will remove any more off-topic posts in this thread. If you wish to criticize the teachings of the Church regarding salvation being offered exclusively through her (in visible and in potentially invisible ways, in known ways and potentially in unknown ways), start another thread please.

[Apotheoun]

I am in general agreement with what Aloysius said in the post below, which is from a thread that discussed the possible restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the SSPX, because I believe that what he said in that post summarizes in a fairly accurate manner the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches:

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1773657' date='Feb 5 2009, 11:38 PM']off topic a bit, but, the Eastern Churches are called "sui juris" for a reason: they are (at least meant to be) totally self-governing. Following roughlly the model of the first millenium, the Pope is to be simply an ultimate guarantee for unity, the final appeal when an issue cannot be resolved by the individual Church. ie, the Pope does not micro manage the Eastern Churches and in ordinary circumstances is not even to be directly involved in them; he is to be the first amoung equals (the other patriarchs who are within their own Churches equal in position and power to the pope as the pope is within his own Church) and the place of ultimate appeal to guarantee unity in extra-ordinary circumstances

pretty much all the Churches are complete in and of themselves with their own "pope"-- their patriarch, and run smoothly. the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, however, consider Rome to be the ultimate mediator when something cannot be resolved otherwise. Thus Peter guarantees unity without really being "in charge" of the other patriarchs.[/quote]

Edited February 21, 2009 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

The Pope is the [b]supreme[/b] authority in the Church and has jurisdiction over *all* Christians. This power is immediate and does not need to be ratified by an Eastern Patriarch or Synod.

To demonstrate the authority of the Pope consider the following: If all the bishops in the world gathered in a council and unanimously declared X, but the Pope rejected X and declared Y, the Pope's authority *over rides* that of the bishops. So it is wrong to say the Pope is an [i]equal[/i] to any Patriarch, or to speak of the Church as if it were a confederacy of self governing churches each with their own "pope."

Christ established *one* Church and *one* office to possess the supreme authority of the Keys.

[Aloysius]

The Pope has supreme authority, but ought not to excercise it except in extra-ordinary circumstances when it comes to the Eastern sui juris Churches.

He is first among equals in a big sense.... his authority is intended to settle disputes and guarantee unity as the final arbiter, not the everyday governor.

You speak in a purely medieval understanding; my understanding is one which gives equal weight to the first millenium AND to the medieval teachings, IMHO. not only that, but it also follows much better from the scriptural teachings about the 12 Apostles over whom Peter had primacy but was also equal to them. the Council of Jerusalem makes much more sense with Peter as first among equals, with the potential to exercise supreme authority to guarantee unity but not with a regular micro-management of the Churches governed by the sees of other Apostles; ie other Patriarchs.

I don't think you'll find that what I say in any way contradicts any teachings about Papal authority in any of the 21 Ecumenical Councils (which I continue to believe ought to be seen as such by the Easterns) or any papal teachings medieval, ancient, or modern.

your view, on the other hand, is extremely disconnected from the first millenium model of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

The following statement was made by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch while he was attending the Synod of Bishops in Rome in September / October 2001:

[quote][b]H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria[/b]

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French][/quote]
Taken from the Vatican website: [url="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html"]The Holy See Press Office: SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM BULLETIN[/url]

[mortify]

Peace,

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787482' date='Feb 21 2009, 07:42 PM']The Pope has supreme authority, but ought not to excercise it except in extra-ordinary circumstances when it comes to the Eastern sui juris Churches.[/quote]

The Pope is not limited to when he can or can't exercise his supreme authority. If he sees an error in faith or morals, or decides to enact or loosen a certain discipline, he has the authority to do so without having to wait for the East to call on him, or needing the permission of an Eastern Synod to do so.

[quote]He is first among equals in a big sense.... his authority is intended to settle disputes and guarantee unity as the final arbiter, not the everyday governor.[/quote]

The Pope's role is *not* limited to being an arbiter in disputes.
[quote]You speak in a purely medieval understanding; my understanding is one which gives equal weight to the first millenium AND to the medieval teachings, IMHO. not only that, but it also follows much better from the scriptural teachings about the 12 Apostles over whom Peter had primacy but was also equal to them. the Council of Jerusalem makes much more sense with Peter as first among equals, with the potential to exercise supreme authority to guarantee unity but not with a regular micro-management of the Churches governed by the sees of other Apostles; ie other Patriarchs.[/quote]

I suggest you review Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3