The Creed

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894566' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:53 PM']The dogmas which the sacrosanct general and ecumenical Tridentine Synod defined are not "defunct customs".[/quote]
Whenever I have taught catechism classes at my Church I have used the catechetical materials supplied by the local eparchy, and approved by the Holy Synod, and the ending tests for the various grade levels are readily available on the Melkite website, which openly states that there have been only seven ecumenical councils.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894577' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:58 PM']Whenever I have taught catechism classes at my Church I have used the catechetical materials supplied by the local eparchy, and approved by the Holy Synod, and the ending tests for the various grade levels are readily available on the Melkite website, which openly states that there have been only seven ecumenical councils.[/quote]

Why on earth would anyone put the test online? That's a great way to assure that everyone gets a perfect score, I guess.

I am just glad that most of the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of the sui iuris Eastern Churches accept Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894597' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:10 PM']Why on earth would anyone put the test online? That's a great way to assure that everyone gets a perfect score, I guess. [/quote]
Probably to save money. Unlike the rich Roman diocese, our eparchies do not have a lot of money.

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894597' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:10 PM']I am just glad that most of the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of the sui iuris Eastern Churches accept Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc.[/quote]
Exactly how many Eastern Catholic Churches have "major Archbishops"?

[Apotheoun]

Have you read anything written by Lubomyr Husar, the head of the UGCC? He may not be as outspoken as the Melkite Patriarch, but he has said that Ukrainian Catholics have the same faith as the Ukrainian Orthodox, and has insisted that Ukrainian Catholics do not have to accept Latin theological formulations.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894605' date='Jun 17 2009, 06:18 PM']Probably to save money. Unlike the rich Roman diocese, our eparchies do not have a lot of money.


Exactly how many Eastern Catholic Churches have "major Archbishops"?[/quote]

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Romanian Church United with Rome, the Syro-Malabar Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church have major archbishops.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894623' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:30 PM']The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Romanian Church United with Rome, the Syro-Malabar Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church have major archbishops.[/quote]
And in Eastern ecclesiology what exactly is a Major Archbishop, and is there even such a designation in our tradition?

[Resurrexi]

He is the leader of his sui iuris Church.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894655' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:53 PM']He is the leader of his sui iuris Church.[/quote]
You failed to answer my other question, but the fact that historically speaking there is no such thing in the Eastern tradition as a major archbishop is a quirky situation that Ukrainians are not happy with.

[Resurrexi]

I guess the major archbishop of the UGCC will have to talk to the Pope about that on his next [i]ad limina[/i] visit to Rome.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894661' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:59 PM']I guess the major archbishop of the UGCC will have to talk to the Pope about that on his next [i]ad limina[/i] visit to Rome.[/quote]
Actually all my UGCC friends call Lubomyr Husar "patriarch" and they seem indifferent to what Rome says or thinks about the issue.

[Resurrexi]

To call him their patriarch is not canonically correct.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894664' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:01 PM']To call him their patriarch is not canonically correct.[/quote]
Oh no! What will they ever do!

[Resurrexi]

You never addressed "kai ex amphoteron aidios os apo mias arches kai monadikes proboles ekporeuetai."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894706' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:37 PM']You never addressed "kai ex amphoteron aidios os apo mias arches kai monadikes proboles ekporeuetai."[/quote]
I have addressed the issue already several times, because I have asserted all along that Florence teaches error on the procession of origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit, and ironically enough the Vatican itself -- in the mid 1990s -- stated that the words [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proienai[/i] have different meanings in the Greek language, and that the former term refers to the Father's causing ([i]aition[/i]) the Spirit to exist as [i]hypostasis[/i], while the latter term refers only to the progression ([i]proienai[/i]) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son as energy. Thus, the giver (i.e., the Holy Spirit as person) of all good gifts comes only from the Father, while the gifts given (i.e., the energies of the Spirit) come to mankind from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

That said, any proposition that asserts that the Son participates in the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Spirit is unbiblical and unpatristic and as such it is erroneous, for that term is reserved to expressing the Spirit's relationship to the Father, Who alone is the font of divinity ([i]pege tes theotetos[/i]).

I must admit that I do not understand why you continue to quote texts from a council that I have openly and consistently rejected as non-ecumenical, as if simply quoting those spurious texts will cause me to given in and accept the errors that you have uncritically embraced. As I told one of my professors at Franciscan University while I was working on my MA in Theology there a few year ago . . . Florence is wrong, because it confuses the meanings of the terms [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proienai[/i], which is contrary to the teaching of the Greek Fathers. Sadly, the Latin bishops at that local Roman synod -- without seeming to understand fully what they were doing -- promoted a form of Sabellian Modalism in the Roman Church by blending the Father and the Son into a single principle ([i]arche[/i]), because -- according to the unanimous teaching of the Greek Fathers -- it is God the Father alone who is the principle of origin within the Trinity, i.e., He is personally the sole [i]arche[/i] within the Godhead. In other words, being [i]arche[/i] is a personal characteristic of the Father and to give that hypostatic property to the Son is to blend them into one person, which is simply a form of the heresy of Sabellius.

Finally, if at some point in the future the Melkite Catholic Church were forced by the Roman Church to accept the decree of Florence as a true dogmatic pronouncement, it follows that I would have no other option but to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, because it would mean that the Roman Church had not simply taught an erroneous opinion ([i]theologoumenon[/i]) at a local council, which has happened in many [i]sui juris[/i] Churches in the past, but that it had openly embraced heresy on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession of origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]).

Edited June 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894732' date='Jun 17 2009, 08:14 PM']I have addressed the issue already several times,...

I must admit that I do not understand why you continue to quote texts from a council that I have openly and consistently rejected as non-ecumenical,...[/quote]

Luckily he is only laity and not a Bishop, so this retentive acts of a constant barrage of "Council dogma" is not in effect with talks from Rome and the Orthodox.

Funny thing is in your statements you have essentially laid out every argument in regards to the filioque. You beat me to the punch, good sir.

Christ is in our midst,
VK

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Vasilius Konstantinos' post='1894909' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:16 AM']Luckily he is only laity and not a Bishop, so this retentive acts of a constant barrage of "Council dogma" is not in effect with talks from Rome and the Orthodox.
VK[/quote]

Pope Benedict XVI has affirmed the ecumenical status of the Catholic ecumenical councils that Apotheoun denies to be ecumenical. The same Pope has also affirmed the dogmatic status of the doctrines of said councils which Apotheoun denies.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Resurrexi

[KnightofChrist]

[b]Council of Trent:[/b] "What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. [u]As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.[/u] In [u]some[/u] instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.

SORCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url]

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Resurrexi,
So what would you have me do then in the name of God. Is converting to Roman Catholicism and dumping the Eastern Orthodox faith the only thing in your dialogue the only thing I can do to not condemn(lol word filters) my soul to eternal Hell because I am not a Papist?

So far, every Priest, every Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Monsignor, Monk and Abbot I have come in contact with since I have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy has told me that though I am not in union with Rome and the Papacy but that I am in the Church of Jesus Christ nonetheless, and that we are in dialogue for communion. Each person specified that Orthodoxy is the Church, but more or less brothers who are not in acceptance with political and technical differences, not official doctrine which condemns the soul. All have told me that everything is valid, even our Creed. It was even stated that I could partake of Catholic Church communion if I had no Orthodox Church around me or my family if one of us fell deathly ill and needed sacraments.

So what is it that would unite us back as one Church? Or is a strict conversion the only thing that will save us, or you(after all, we do consider the Catholic Church as the heretics who left us and went doctrinally Pope crazy, not vice~versa), from eternal damnation? Please, from a Papal perspective, drudge up the arguments, post them in another thread and have it out.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Vasilius Konstantinos

[KnightofChrist]

[b]View of the Post-Schism Councils:[/b] Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. I[u]t would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.[/u]

SOURCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1894932' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:33 AM'][b]Council of Trent:[/b] "What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. [u]As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.[/u] In [u]some[/u] instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.

SORCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url][/quote]


[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1894946' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:40 AM'][b]View of the Post-Schism Councils:[/b] Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. I[u]t would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.[/u]

SOURCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url][/quote]