|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,642
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 12
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
"Are any of the "Orthodox hierarchs" who "refer to him as Patriarch"? Recognizing a President or any other leader, civil or religious by their titular style of leadership is a public recognition of the holder of the title and the title. Even official representatives of the MP have referred to Patriarch Sviatoslav as Patriarch. Considering how the Orthodox claim to eschew legalism, all of your arguments are exceedingly legalistic. Speaking of "legalistic", I don't recall any Pope busting all of his suffragan bishops to "auxiliary" status as has the current Antiochian Metropolitan in the US. Sounds rather papal, and certainly foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. It certainly doesn't sound "simple".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Not to mention that between Latin or Slavonic, I'd like to think that Slavonic's an easier language to catch on to, imo. I mean, sure Latin is the original language of the Catholic Church as we know it, but after St. John Chrysostom and the Eastern Church of Constantinopole became Catholic, this brought the Slavonic language into the fold, and to me, it just sounds like a better language for the church. Living in between a Polish and a Ukrainian neighborhood, even though we have Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite Catholic churches all over the place, I'd almost have to equally learn both. Brother Bob, I think you are a little confused. For example, not only is Latin NOT the original language of the Church but St. John Chrysostom never used or even heard of Church Slavonic. As to which language is easier I've been a member of a BC Church for 13 years and know very little, almost no, Slavonic despite it's frequent use. I know a good deal more Latin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
"Are any of the "Orthodox hierarchs" who "refer to him as Patriarch"? Recognizing a President or any other leader, civil or religious by their titular style of leadership is a public recognition of the holder of the title and the title. Even official representatives of the MP have referred to Patriarch Sviatoslav as Patriarch. Considering how the Orthodox claim to eschew legalism, all of your arguments are exceedingly legalistic. Speaking of "legalistic", I don't recall any Pope busting all of his suffragan bishops to "auxiliary" status as has the current Antiochian Metropolitan in the US. Sounds rather papal, and certainly foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. It certainly doesn't sound "simple". Sure is, and yes you have: Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd...Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. Although His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV is Peter and his successor in his apostolic see, we do have recourse to higher authority when he, or his/our Holy Synod or any one of his/our bishops err, as their judgements are subject to revison and appeal to superior authority. Last I noticed/checked, i.e. last Sunday, the situatuion was status quo ante that disgraceful nonsense, rather papal (in the Pastor Aeternus, not Alexandrine, sense) and certainly foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. Can you quote those "official representatives of the MP"? And can you explain what the Patriarch of Moscow says means more to you than your supreme pontiff, who refers to your Major-Archbishop Sviatoslav as Major-Archbishop? "Recognizing a President or any other leader, civil or religious by their titular style of leadership is a public recognition of the holder of the title and the title" not 100% sure what you are asserting here, and what you recommend when the holder of the title and the title are not recognized.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
In my opinion, the Orthodox should learn not to be such back-seat drivers. Whenever this topic comes up, you get some Orthodox making it clear that they will be upset if the Vatican ever officially refers to the UGCC as a patriarchate, and other Orthodox making it clear that they're upset that the Vatican hasn't done so already.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
In my opinion, the Orthodox should learn not to be such back-seat drivers. Whenever this topic comes up, you get some Orthodox making it clear that they will be upset if the Vatican ever officially refers to the UGCC as a patriarchate, and other Orthodox making it clear that they're upset that the Vatican hasn't done so already. Who Orthodox is upset that the Vatican's hasn't done so?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 308
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 308 |
The only Orthodox who really care about the Patriarchate of the UGCC are those who are arguing where the Kyivian Church really is today. Russia contends that it has moved to Moscow while the Ukrainians (UGCC, UOC-KP, UAOC) contends that it is still in Ukraine. There are of course political issues here at play, but also the Patriarchate of Moscow could lose its luster if a canonical Patriarchate is established in Ukraine, even if it is among the Catholics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
The only Orthodox who really care about the Patriarchate of the UGCC are those who are arguing where the Kyivian Church really is today. Hmmm, I suppose that's a plausible theory. I just recall various conversations in which one or more Orthodox expressed the opinion that the UGCC should or shouldn't be a patriarchate; I can't tell you what those persons' beliefs on all other subjects are. Who Orthodox is upset that the Vatican's hasn't done so? Maybe "upset" wasn't the right word. Perhaps "don't like" ["wouldn't like" resp.] would have been more appropriate: In my opinion, the Orthodox should learn not to be such back-seat drivers. Whenever this topic comes up, you get some Orthodox making it clear that they wouldn't like it if the Vatican ever officially refers to the UGCC as a patriarchate, and other Orthodox making it clear that they don't like that the Vatican hasn't done so already.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I'm with those who believe the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should take a play out of the Orthodox book and "just do it". As Father Taft suggested some time back, the normal manner in which a patriarchate is elevated in the Orthodox communion is for a particular Church to announce unilaterally its patriarchal status. Some Orthodox Churches welcome the new patriarchate, others shun it, but eventually (after half a century or so) they all accept the new status quo.
The UGCC should, therefore, formally announce that it is now the Greek Catholic Patriarchal Church of Kyiv, led by His Beatitude Patriarch Sviatoslav. It should change its letterhead and its website to reflect its new status, and it should stop accepting mail addressed to the "Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halich": "Returned to Sender--No Such Person at This Address. It should cease answering phone calls requesting the Major Archbishop. It should not respond to e-mails or tweets so addressed, either. The Orthodox will howl. Rome will howl. In the end, all will accede because that's just how life is. There comes a time in the life of a Church when it has risen to a level of prominence which justifies patriarchal status. If other Churches, for political reasons, refuse to recognize this, then that Church is within its rights to claim what is its own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Stuart, Do you hate the Orthodox?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Stuart, Do you hate the Orthodox? I should certainly think not. He's just highly opinionated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
I'm with those who believe the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should take a play out of the Orthodox book and "just do it". Side question: is there such a word as "Orthodozation"? Or, more to the point, if it doesn't exist should we invent it? Now back to ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
No kidding. He is usually correct when he sticks to issues but he falls off the track when he imagines the motives of others, sets up straw men, and attacks the straw man. He should stick to what he knows and not wander off into areas where he has no knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
I'm with those who believe the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should take a play out of the Orthodox book and "just do it". Side question: is there such a word as "Orthodozation"? Or, more to the point, if it doesn't exist should we invent it? Now back to ... There is Byzantinization / Constantiopolization - which is what occurred when the Semitic Churches rejected Chalcedon. The EP set up it's own Greek appointees to the Sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and possibly Jerusalem, and became defacto Supreme Pontiff (First Among Equals with more than Equal Jurisdiction). I'm totally in favor of Very Rev. Fr. Taft's "just do it" principle as well! I'm sure the Catholicos (aka Major-Archbishop) of the Malankara Syrian Catholic Church and the Holy Synod agree... now if the hoops regarding married clergy could follow the same.. =)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
What, exactly, could the Holy See do if the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the United States decided to begin ordaining married men without reference to Rome? Excommunicate them all? The truth is, if we haven't ordained any married men in this country, it is because our God-loving bishops find it more convenient not to do so. All honor, then, to Bishop Nicholas, who seems determined to take the bit between his teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
