|
0 members (),
192
guests, and
63
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,467
Posts417,239
Members6,106
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5 |
Yaka YA Rabb, you quoted the Patriarch of Antioch as saying: 1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. What are the limits recognised by the Holy Fathers of the first millenium?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441 Likes: 5
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441 Likes: 5 |
That is the billion dollar question. The reading of History from Rome is a very different perspective from that of the Orthodox Church. Chris PS for full disclosure I am an Orthodox Christian but was a cradle member of the Byzantine Catholic Church for 35 years (sorry you didn't want to hear from Orthodox Bretheren  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68 |
Pope Benedict XVI has other fish to fry, such as the infestation of the Latin Church with liberals who would use and abuse any relaxation of papal authority. How can Rome relax its claims relative to the East without furthering the disintegration of the Latin Church?
That's the major question probably looking from the pope's perspective. It's a delicate balance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68 |
I'm not going to be re-latinized because it's convenient. I will remain Orthodox in Communion with Rome until 1) I die or 2) I am forced out of the Melkite Church in another Orthodox Church not in Communion with Rome.
We cannot go on living a lie. We are not Roman Catholics and we have the obligation to stop acting like we are.
As for the 21 ecumenical Councils, our Catechism explicitly states that we acknowlegde 7 councils while the Roman Church acknowledges 21. This is our Catechism and was complied with the approval of our hierarchs.
We don't have to decide to be Orthodox because we already are! We are not Roman Catholics and we must stop relying on Rome to approve of us.
Finally, lets all stop quoting Vatican I and Vatican II, plus a host of other documents that have little to do with our Churches, our Faith and our Spirituality. If any one wants to understand the Eastern Churches part in Vatican I and Vatican II, do the research! We fought to be Orthodox. Our Fathers defended our faith. Sadly, we haven't awaken from our Latinized slumber.
>>Let me respond that I agree in principle, but I am being a realist. There are over 1 billion Latins, compared with 20 or 30 million of us. We are stuck in no-man's land between the trenches of the Roman Catholics on one side and the Orthodox on the other.
Ask Bishop Cyril if you and I, as Melkites are free to reject Vatican I or Vatican II for that matter. I think the answer likely would be disconcerting. We may not be Roman Catholics, but we are still Catholic. The CDF's document on the nature of the Church is unavoidable for us, no matter how distasteful it may be.
We have the choice of the successive schisms of the Orthodox on one side and the stifling nature of the Latin Church on the other. I have always lamented the fact I am too Orthodox to be Catholic, yet too Catholic to be Orthodox. As Eastern Catholics, we are neither fish nor fowl.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
John,
I think that's exactly the answer. For too long the Churches in communion with each other have mandated an unspoken inferiority for any Church that isn't the Roman Church. Sadly, this has caused a lot of problems.
Thankfully, this was corrected and now we have the opportunity to move forward. I think the first step in quelling liberals in the Latin Church is acknowledging the legitimate diversity in the Universal Church (that is, all the Churches in Communion with each other, Rome, Antioch, ect.).
We hear people constantly saying there is not reverence in the Latin Church. Well, look at our Churches! We hear people constantly saying that Latin Theology is intellectual and they want more mystery, well, look at our Churches! We hear people say that celebacy is manditory, well, look at our tradition! We hear people saying that thier church is too big, well, look at our churches, they are usually small, quaint, and close knit!
The Universal Church has so much to offer, but everyone is convinced that the universal Church is the Roman Church. They don't know about the treasures of the East. We have treasures that can cure some of the problems of modern society in the West. Problems that we are better suited to handle than the Roman Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
John,
I don't think we can outright reject anything. But, saying we have to actually accept things into our Theology, Spirituality and Faith that are contrary to it is like saying the Latins have to accept things in thier Theology that are contrary to it. It's just plain silly.
Yeah, we are Catholic but there are Orthodox that consider themselves Catholic too. The only difference between us and our Orthodox brethern is that our Pope (a term for our Patriarch that hasn't been used for 1,300+ years) of Antioch is in Communion with the Pope of Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
I mean maybe I should just join an Orthodox Church, but right now, I don't see why I should when the Patriarch and most of the hierarchy of the Church I am a member of support our authentic faith and traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68 |
My parish life is made up of attending the Divine Liturgy only because it is made up of a bunch of gray-haired old ladies. If I go to an Orthodox Church, I don't fit in because of my belief in the papacy. If I go to a Latin Church to participate in a young adults' fellowship, I'm looked at is if I'm some sort of wierd bird because I'm Greek Catholic.
Latin Catholic: "Your not under the pope, now are you? Are you really a Catholic?"
Orthodox: "You can't be Orthodox while accepting the Roman dogmas." Then they start wondering why you are hanging around with them and don't fully convert.
We are the mules of the Christian world because we are half Roman Catholic and half Orthodox.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
Unfortunately, we do find ourselves in this situation. We have to be a witness to both the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches. Lately, it seems like most I have met are not up to the task.
Well, if that's the case, the we should all take the advice of Sayedna Nicholas Samra said at the 2005 Melkite Convention. If we aren't willing to be true to our traditions and fight to keep our Church alive then we ought to let it die with dignity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. What are the limits recognised by the Holy Fathers of the first millenium? Well, as I see it, all of the developments in the understanding of the papacy that have occurred since the Gregorian reform (circa 11th century A.D.) are not applicable within the Eastern Christian tradition. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
I tend to agree with the position taken by the Melkite Holy Synod back in the 1990s: 1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. AMEN!!! Preach it brother!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I posted this response in another thread, but I thought that I would post it here as well (in a slightly modified and shortened form): The problem is that the Roman view of the primacy has morphed into something that is not Catholic (in the true sense of that term). Instead, the Roman Church has embraced a modern doctrinal innovation of the second millennium in connection with the primacy, and -- of course -- the Orthodox will never accept papal primacy as it has been defined and lived in Roman Catholicism over the course of the last few centuries. As I see it, the sooner that Eastern Catholics accept this fact, the better, because it is only then that we (i.e., Eastern Catholics) can become what we truly are, Byzantine, and not merely Latins pretending to be Byzantine.
Now, I have a great respect for the present Pope, and for the papal office in general; nevertheless, the Pope is not above the Patriarchs (as the Melkite Patriarch has made clear), nor is he above the rest of the bishops either; in fact, he is simply a bishop, possessing the fullness of Episcopal authority, like every other bishop. Nevertheless, it is true that he has an historic primacy, which he shares with the other two Patriarchal sees that are connected historically to Peter (i.e., Antioch and Alexandria), as St. Gregory the Great himself pointed out [See St. Gregory's, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]. But the petrine ministry itself is possessed by all the bishops, because all the bishops are "successors" of Peter in the unity of Episcopal consecration, as the Orthodox Churches have always held.
Finally, as an Eastern Catholic, I hold the Orthodox faith; and so, I cannot accept the doctrinal innovations created by the Roman Church during the course of the second millennium, because my theology (ecclesiology) is -- and must be -- Byzantine, and not Roman. That said, as far as the primacy is concerned, I hold the Orthodox faith as it was formulated and lived during the first millennium. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 68 |
Well, as I see it, all of the developments in the understanding of the papacy that have occurred since the Gregorian reform (circa 11th century A.D.) are not applicable within the Eastern Christian tradition.
>> Todd,
Now if only that were reflected in our canon law because it's not. Until Rome decides that it will allow us to glorify our own saints, elect and install our own bishops without its permission or to act autonomously, we are stuck in the context of the Gregorian papacy. Considering what Benedict XVI said while he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it is time for him to pony up to the bar.
,John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
John,
It is reflected in our canons (i.e., the Pedalion); but I agree that it is not reflected in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which was created for us by the Roman Curia.
God bless,
Todd
P.S. - Once again I agree with you, Pope Benedict XVI needs to follow through with what he has written about the primacy in his book, Principles of Catholic Theology."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5 |
Hey everyone! Thanks so much for your responses to my question. I really appreciated it.
|
|
|
|
|
