|
2 members (Hutsul, theophan),
1,141
guests, and
83
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,456
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7 |
If I understand you correctly, you are comparing the voice of the Melkite Patriarch to the First Vatican Council. I dont think there is an ecclesiologist anywhere who would agree with you. Father, No I don't think that's what I am saying at all. The Melkite Patriarch does not operate independently of the Melkite Church, which is fully, 100%, without equivocation Catholic. Yes, Vat. I was a council of the whole Catholic Church, including the Eastern Rite churches. One cannot hold the Catholic faith in its entirety and reject Vat. I. I don't think many of us Easterners "reject" Vatican I per s�, most of us think it applies mainly to the Latin Church as its General Council and uses Latin theology and wording. On the other the Patriarch of one Rite cannot impose on the Universal Church his teaching--unless that Patriarch is the pope. (This may explain why Benedict eliminated the title, Patriarch of the West as he is not a mere Patriarch but the pope.) The Pope didn't proclaim papal infallibility unilaterally, so I don't see how a Council viewed as dealing with Latin nuances really applies to the East. Considering that Popes both before and after came to full Communion with various Eastern Church asking specifically not to change one dot or tittle of their Tradition/praxis/theology - how does one reconcile these two realities? The pope's role in the Catholic Church is less a matter of patriarchy than papacy. I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 11/16/07 10:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476 |
Michael_Thoma wrote: The Pope didn't proclaim papal infallibility unilaterally, so I don't see how a Council viewed as dealing with Latin nuances really applies to the East. From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913: The Vatican Council, the twentieth and up to now [1912] the last ecumenical council, opened on 8 December, 1869, and adjourned on 20 October, 1870. It met three hundred years after the Council of Trent. In attendance at the first public session were 47 cardinals, 9 patriarchs, 7 primates, 117 archbishops, 479 bishops, 5 abbots nullius, 9 abbots general, and 25 generals of orders, making a total of 698. At the third public session votes were cast by 47 cardinals, 9 patriarchs, 8 primates, 107 archbishops, 456 bishops, 1 administrator Apostolic, 20 abbots, and 20 generals of orders, a total of 667. There was an attendance at the council from the United States of America of all of the 7 archbishops of that time, 37 of the 47 bishops, and in addition 2 vicars Apostolic. The oldest member of the council was Archbishop MacHale, of Tuam, Ireland; the youngest, Bishop (now Cardinal) Gibbons. On the declaration of infallibility: While only a few Armenian bishops opposed the definition, most of the Chaldean and Greek Melchites sided with the minority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Michael Thoma,
So the Eastern Churches' presence at Vatican I, Vatican II, Ferrara-Florence, etc. don't matter? How is it logical to say that post-Schism councils aren't ecumenical because the Eastern Churches weren't there, but in the cases that they were there, such as these, it still doesn't count? Why?
And also because a council may've used "Latin" wording it is therefore null for the East? Could the same be applied to earlier ecumenical councils that used "Eastern" wording? Are these then not ecumenical for the West, because of that fact? No one (that I know of) retains such a position.
The whole thing just seems like very wishful thinking on the part of those Eastern Catholics who do not wish to accept the Catholic Faith in its entirety and somehow think this can be squared with logic. I really just don't, and never have, gotten it, despite the myriad attempts of certain members of this Forum over the past few years to try and explain the position. It is no more sensical or clear to me than it was years ago.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
The Greek-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East is not competent to teach the Faith, even if that should involve resisting his brother of Rome? That is a novel idea - and even Pius IX knew better, which is why he used violence in an effort to force Patriarch Gregory II to accept Pastor Aeternus (even despite the violence Patriarch Gregory was not moved to change his position - shcih says something important about both Pius IX and Patriarch Gregory II).
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Father,
If you are saying that all hierarchs at all times teach the Faith in its entirety and purity, then it seems I don't even need to answer. We all know that's not the case.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
The Greek-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East is not competent to teach the Faith, even if that should involve resisting his brother of Rome? That is a novel idea - and even Pius IX knew better, which is why he used violence in an effort to force Patriarch Gregory II to accept Pastor Aeternus (even despite the violence Patriarch Gregory was not moved to change his position - shcih says something important about both Pius IX and Patriarch Gregory II).
Fr. Serge Given the fact that the Pope Pius IX used violence and threats against his brethren to get his will at VAtican I, doesn't this call into question whether Vatican I was truly "free?" I think that is the basis for Archbishop Zoghby's claim that Vatican I is not a legitimate council in any sense of the word. He calls it a "pseudo-council." http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:zlY_DvQHZVkJ:www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/VATICAN1.DOC+elias+zoghby+vatican+I+pseudo-council&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Sorry, I should say that he suggested that it may be a "pseudocouncil."
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 11/17/07 01:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Alex,
You are onto something. The ZI position is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies which its proponents dont seem to address.
Infallibility is by definition universal. Something cannot be infallible for one part of the church and fallible or even untrue for another part of the same church. That violates the law of non-contradiction, which is fine if one is Anglican, but not if one is Catholic.
Infallibility was taught be the entire church, East and West at Vat. I. It cannot be binding only one one part of the Church. As the Ravenna documenat states, a local church, the Melkites, cannot contradict what is taught by the whole church. We all have to live with what is.
I understand that one wishes that Rome were simply another local church. To propose this as a future position of the church is fine. That is speculative. To hold it as personal belief is a matter of dissent. Public dissent is a grave matter, and one risks discipline, especially is one is a member of the clergy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7 |
I think that Vatican I speaks a certain truth, that the Church speaks truth infallibly and when the Pope speaks truth for the Church, the Pope speaks infallibly. On the other hand, a future Council needs to address how the Pope's infallibility does not negate the infallibility of the Church, but reflect it. This infallibility extends not only to the Church universal, but to the Church regional and local as well, when all are united and speaking Truth. Infallibility is by definition universal. Something cannot be infallible for one part of the church and fallible or even untrue for another part of the same church. That violates the law of non-contradiction, which is fine if one is Anglican, but not if one is Catholic. The Law of non-contradiction does not apply here, since in my opinion the articles of infallibility are incomplete. For example, Latins contend that the Body and Blood of Christ transubstantiate at the "words of institution", most Easterners contend that the transformation occurs at the Epiclesis. Are these "contradictory" from a strictly legal viewpoint? Yes. Are there Truths in both these views? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7 |
I understand that one wishes that Rome were simply another local church. To propose this as a future position of the church is fine. That is speculative. To hold it as personal belief is a matter of dissent. Public dissent is a grave matter, and one risks discipline, especially is one is a member of the clergy. Father, what does the local Church of Rome have to do with this discussion? If we are referring to the Pope, fine, but refer to him in his role as head of the entire Church without elevating the whole Latin Church above all the others. Even the Latin Code of Canons states clearly that Rome is no greater or holier or more infallible than any of the other Churches within the Catholic Communion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I understand that one wishes that Rome were simply another local church. To propose this as a future position of the church is fine. That is speculative. To hold it as personal belief is a matter of dissent. Public dissent is a grave matter, and one risks discipline, especially is one is a member of the clergy. Rome is simply a local Church, and saying so is in no way "speculative"; instead, it is merely a statement of fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
As an Eastern Catholic I accept all seven of the ecumenical councils.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Ok. I see your point. That is fair.
It is probably a bad habit to refer to the papacy as "Rome." But it is a common one. Otherwise, there would be no claims to "New Rome" or "Third Rome." Instead, they should refer to "New Peter" or "Third Peter" or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Ok. I see your point. That is fair.
It is probably a bad habit to refer to the papacy as "Rome." But it is a common one. Otherwise, there would be no claims to "New Rome" or "Third Rome." Instead, they should refer to "New Peter" or "Third Peter" or something. The pope is the bishop of the Church of Rome, and he is the protos among, but not over, the other bishops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
I understand that one wishes that Rome were simply another local church. To propose this as a future position of the church is fine. That is speculative. To hold it as personal belief is a matter of dissent. Public dissent is a grave matter, and one risks discipline, especially is one is a member of the clergy. Rome is simply a local Church, and saying so is in no way "speculative"; instead, it is merely a statement of fact. I understand that one wishes that Rome were simply another local church. To propose this as a future position of the church is fine. That is speculative. To hold it as personal belief is a matter of dissent. Public dissent is a grave matter, and one risks discipline, especially is one is a member of the clergy. Rome is simply a local Church, and saying so is in no way "speculative"; instead, it is merely a statement of fact. Ok. That is fine. As long as we all agree that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction. I am not saying that he should always have or necessarily always did have universal jurisdiction. But, it is simply false to say that the pope does not now exercise universal jurisdiction. If he does not have universal jurisdiction at this time, furnish the documents.
|
|
|
|
|
