Perhaps you could take note that I did not use the disparaging term "Traddies" in referring to those who hold to a very conservative and ultra-traditional Roman Catholic position.
No....probably not. Beating on me appears to be more fun.
Congratulations on not using a second disparaging term. You seem to miss my point. Those who speak disparaging of others show themselves to be lacking in wisdom, and thus any opinion they might offer is not taken seriously. I recommend that you take a break from internet posting and concentrate on getting rid of your baggage.
Someone rather important in the Christian faith used such language in describing other human beings.
I note that you seem to care less that I am trying to learn. As for "getting rid of my baggage," I will discuss this with my spiritual director, who will probably agree with you (as I do) but will treat me with charity. (Some people are never on your side no matter what you do)
Personally I see Patriarch Bartholomew as a blessing to the Christian world, perhaps I have some affinity (yes, I know he has opposition in the orthodox world, just as Francis has opposition in the Catholic world too). Perhaps my vision of the Orthodox Church has even changed, more or less as Shevchuk said:
"I have to say, this step by the Church of Constantinople has destroyed certain schemes of ecumenical dialogue that took hold during the time of the Cold War. The primary and privileged interlocutor in this dialogue in the context of the Cold War and Ostpolitik was always Moscow. Dialogue with the entire Orthodox world was understood in this direction. Now, it has to be rethought, not only in terms of how to conduct the dialogue, which has to be updated, but the entire concept has to be rethought. There are various expressions of Orthodoxy. Perhaps this will be interesting for highlighting various forms of ecumenical dialogue. Up to this point, we Catholics often have projected upon the Orthodox world an ecclesial form that’s basically Catholic. A single Orthodoxy doesn’t exist, like there’s a single Catholic Church. What you have are various local Orthodox churches. It’s a mistake to consider one of these churches as an exclusive spokesman for all. I think the one that really has to be respected, according to the rules of the Orthodox world, is the Patriarch of Constantinople, because, he’s the first among equals. Therefore, this gesture is also a challenge. I’ve said that these two events will mark a new period in the history of the Universal Church. I don’t believe it will be an easy period, but definitely interesting, and also an impulse of the Holy Spirit."
Serafim and Francis were great saints of their respective traditions, but I think that the Prince of the Apostles has more "importance" in "ecumenical" relations and for history.
At one time the Basilica of Saint Peter was the patriarchal church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, albeit the Latin one, now abolished.
Then I read this:
Quote
A patriarchal basilica used to refer to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.
Since the early 13th century, the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Before the late 20th century there was also a wish, never realised, that the basilicas would be seen as pertaining to the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same cities to which the titles applied. In other words, once these Patriarchs were "reconciled" to the Catholic Church, these basilicas would become their Roman bases.
In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI formally abolished the title of “patriarchal basilica” previously given to these churches, and they should now be referred to a "papal basilicas". The traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain, but without any official standing.
The name patriarchal referred to these churches each having been assigned to one of the patriarchs. There were five:
San Giovanni in Laterano (St John Lateran, the Pope) San Pietro in Vaticano (St Peter's Basilica, Patriarch of Constantinople) Santa Maria Maggiore (St Mary Major, Patriarch of Antioch) San Paolo fuori le mura (St Paul outside the Walls, Patriarch of Alexandria) San Lorenzo fuori le Mura (St. Lawrence outside the Walls, Patriarch of Jerusalem)
Having read this, it doesn't seem to be unusual now to me that Pope Francis would gift some relics of Saint Peter to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Maybe His Holiness Francis sees Saint Peter Basilica as belonging to His All Holiness Bartholomew. I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but who knows...
At one time the Basilica of Saint Peter was the patriarchal church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, albeit the Latin one, now abolished.
Then I read this:
Quote
A patriarchal basilica used to refer to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.
Since the early 13th century, the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Before the late 20th century there was also a wish, never realised, that the basilicas would be seen as pertaining to the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same cities to which the titles applied. In other words, once these Patriarchs were "reconciled" to the Catholic Church, these basilicas would become their Roman bases.
In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI formally abolished the title of “patriarchal basilica” previously given to these churches, and they should now be referred to a "papal basilicas". The traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain, but without any official standing.
The name patriarchal referred to these churches each having been assigned to one of the patriarchs. There were five:
San Giovanni in Laterano (St John Lateran, the Pope) San Pietro in Vaticano (St Peter's Basilica, Patriarch of Constantinople) Santa Maria Maggiore (St Mary Major, Patriarch of Antioch) San Paolo fuori le mura (St Paul outside the Walls, Patriarch of Alexandria) San Lorenzo fuori le Mura (St. Lawrence outside the Walls, Patriarch of Jerusalem)
Having read this, it doesn't seem to be unusual now to me that Pope Francis would gift some relics of Saint Peter to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Maybe His Holiness Francis sees Saint Peter Basilica as belonging to His All Holiness Bartholomew. I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but who knows...
Well, the basilicas in Rome were associated with the Latin patriarchates, today suppressed - except the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which must subsist, for there are even Jews converted into the Latin Rite in Jerusalem. Currently they are only papal basilicas.
The gesture seems to me to be the result of friendship, Francis and Bartholomew are true friends.
Also:
Benedict XVI did not use the title of Patriarch of the West, the old understanding of West and East is obsolete, the world is globalized and Christians live in diaspora - besides there are Protestant Christians, title of "Patriarch of the West" would be more ideological than properly real.
I have discussed with some Rad Trads and not all have contempt for the Orthodox. Anyway, everything that some of them [I have heard of] say, I have definitely heard from the other side (EO Rad Trads). Almost word per word. They should send them to the inter-faith discussions. :-) I respect their akrivia but do they ever experience self-doubt? Because the saints doubted visions they were receiving. They wouldn't just jump in and say it's from God because they think or feel a certain way. Especially about the destiny of the Church. When was the Church presided by Her best Bishop? At the Last Supper. Was She perfect them? No, look, Judas received the Eucharist but still could not use It properly in order to overcome his temptations. Furthermore, did Christ curse Judas based on His correct visions? No. Did He curse Peter for other visions? No. He loved and cared for all His Apostles. A Church that abstains from cursing and judging is not a "feminine" Church (like some rad trads say). Or a weak Church. There are many wondrous Saints who help us in many wonderful ways, but the root of the Church is Jesus Christ. And He carried a Cross for everyone else.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
