• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Is theosis possible for those in communion with Rome?

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Also, her response does not take into account the complete phrase 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction'.

Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
NO!  The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary.  
Yes, but only if the local biship is performing to the satisfaction of the Supreme Pontiff.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It will be interesting to see how one could wriggle out of that.  Looks pretty regulatory to me.
I don't understand why this upsets her so much.


Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:

And no.  The pope does not "regulate" the "expression" of RC doctrine and its teaching.   The papacy is NOT a regulatory office.
Ho! ho! ho!  No regulatory office?!

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P17.HTM#4W
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
36
elijahmaria said:
primuspilus said:
FatherGiryus said:
A beautiful statement, and something Orthodox Church agrees with in terms of the equality of all bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome.

elijahmaria said:
Pope Benedict on the Petrine Ministry:

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

http://storico.radiovaticana.org/en1/storico/2009-11/338524_pope_on_understanding_the_petrine_ministry.html
Thats the problem. It is equality, but some..or one is MORE equal than others.

PP
It is astonishing to me, knowing the radical hierarchy of heaven, as taught by the holy fathers, of which the earthly hierarchy is a part, can never really be seen as a hierarchy of love.
Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that the Pope's authority as head of the hierarchy of the (Roman) Church is equivalent to God's authority as head of the hierarchy of Heaven (and all Creation)? Because if so, then I'm not sure what's being disagreed about.

I don't think there's any disagreement that God's authority is absolute. We're all very happy that He is who He is and He wields that authority with absolute Love and Mercy, but that's His choice not ours--if He chose to damn us all to hell, that would be His prerogative, yes? And Fr. Giryus and Fr. Ambrose are arguing that the RC position is that the Pope has absolute power (although I'm not sure even they are making the sweeping claim your analogy does). And I think we can all agree that some Popes, unlike God, have not wielded their authority in a perfect spirit of Love and Mercy; and alternately, that some popes have shown a great deal of humility and love.

So Orthodox don't say that the Pope cannot act out of love and humility--but we are saying that he doesn't have to. And even if he doesn't, he's still pope and, in RC teaching and practice, wields an authority we don't believe is vested in any single individual.

(which I think somehow connects back to the original topic, like the essence and energies discussion, in that it simply demonstrates that RC and Orthodox teaching are different, regardless of which side's argument has more merit--though of course we end up going off-topic to debate the merits of the arguments)
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0


witega said:
elijahmaria said:
primuspilus said:
FatherGiryus said:
A beautiful statement, and something Orthodox Church agrees with in terms of the equality of all bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome.

elijahmaria said:
Pope Benedict on the Petrine Ministry:

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

http://storico.radiovaticana.org/en1/storico/2009-11/338524_pope_on_understanding_the_petrine_ministry.html
Thats the problem. It is equality, but some..or one is MORE equal than others.

PP
It is astonishing to me, knowing the radical hierarchy of heaven, as taught by the holy fathers, of which the earthly hierarchy is a part, can never really be seen as a hierarchy of love.
Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that the Pope's authority as head of the hierarchy of the (Roman) Church is equivalent to God's authority as head of the hierarchy of Heaven (and all Creation)? Because if so, then I'm not sure what's being disagreed about.

I don't think there's any disagreement that God's authority is absolute. We're all very happy that He is who He is and He wields that authority with absolute Love and Mercy, but that's His choice not ours--if He chose to damn us all to hell, that would be His prerogative, yes? And Fr. Giryus and Fr. Ambrose are arguing that the RC position is that the Pope has absolute power (although I'm not sure even they are making the sweeping claim your analogy does). And I think we can all agree that some Popes, unlike God, have not wielded their authority in a perfect spirit of Love and Mercy; and alternately, that some popes have shown a great deal of humility and love.

So Orthodox don't say that the Pope cannot act out of love and humility--but we are saying that he doesn't have to. And even if he doesn't, he's still pope and, in RC teaching and practice, wields an authority we don't believe is vested in any single individual.

(which I think somehow connects back to the original topic, like the essence and energies discussion, in that it simply demonstrates that RC and Orthodox teaching are different, regardless of which side's argument has more merit--though of course we end up going off-topic to debate the merits of the arguments)
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
25
Points
48
FatherGiryus said:
Mary, my sense is that we Orthodox see the Magisterium of Rome as the 'lynch pin' of Roman Catholic teachings.  There is a single point of reference, a single authority, for all teachings.

This has given the RCC the ability to conduct major changes in theology and practice in a very brief period of time, such as the Novus Ordo, which the Orthodox Church simply could never do even if a majority of the bishops resolved to do just that.  Our diversification of authority, through the notion of common Apostolic succession to all bishops, prevents such changes.

For this reason, we tend to look at RCC tradition as a dictate of the Magisterium.  All saints, all writings, all teachings come through this single entity...
VVV
elijahmaria said:
[size=11pt]Father [Giryus],

I do understand what you are saying and appreciate the impact that vision would have on those outside of the Church.  

But I must add this to what you have said.  The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church.

The truth is that there is no one single locus of magisterial teaching.  There is indeed one single locus for collecting the documents and teachings of the ages, coming from councils and synodal meetings and curial texts so that it becomes that much more efficient to devise a catechism or a code of canons...but to think that the contents of those tomes come from one single point on some triangle of a hierarchy is simply a delusion.

But the magisterial charge was given to the bishops and that is where the locus of power in the Church remains to this day.  The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world...
M.
Hi M.,

You seem to be saying here that the papal office was not responsible for Novus Ordo, but that rather bishop's delegates were. Is that what you are saying??

Monsignor Klaus Gamber, however, in Reform of the Roman Liturgy 2, attributes Novus Ordo to Pope Paul VI, despite protests at all levels of the RC church all around the world:

"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do."  -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

I can provide other references attributing Novus Ordo to Pope Paul VI if need by; some can also be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
I wonder if we could all agree not to bring in any more new topics on this thread, in the hope that old matters could be settled?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Novus Disordo

Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism.  It has become the Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Catholic Church today..

"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”

"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~

In the doleful words of Pope Benedict he is not speaking of isolated and rare abuses (clown Masses) but of a breakdown and corruption of the Mass which pervades the Catholic world.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I, for one and as a non-RC, would like to see the RCC return to its more ancient practices.  If we have any hope for reunion, it would be through a more and more traditional RCC.  If they were to progress all the way back to the era of the original schism, I think we could all find reason to overcome the chasm.

Irish Hermit said:
Novus Disordo

Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism.  It has become the Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Catholic Church today..

"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”

"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~

In the doleful words of Pope Benedict he is not speaking of isolated and rare abuses (clown Masses) but of a breakdown and corruption of the Mass which pervades the Catholic world.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Irish Hermit said:
Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism. 
I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit here. I don't recall him ever calling it the greatest threat to Catholicism.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, he should...

I don't think anyone wants to see this as the face of the Roman Catholic Church.








PS- I'm not posting this to embarrass RCs, but to underline the importance of maintaining the sacredness of what is sacred.


Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism. 
I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit here. I don't recall him ever calling it the greatest threat to Catholicism.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism. 
I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit here. I don't recall him ever calling it the greatest threat to Catholicism.
You are right....He wrote...
".....  the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy."
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Peter J said:
I wonder if we could all agree not to bring in any more new topics on this thread, in the hope that old matters could be settled?
Wishful thinking :laugh:
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Yes, the Pope regulates RC teachings.  He is infallible when he chooses to speak ex cathedra, correct?  Therefore, he has the ultimate veto-power over RC doctrine.


[size=10pt]No he does not have veto power.
 


Please refer to the Code of Canon Law.  Nothing taught by any Council has any authority until the Supreme Pontiff ratifies it.  That is veto power.


You wrote out the canon and you still don't know what it means or what it says for that matter.

All you see is what you want to see.  You are still on your hobby horse.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
NO!  The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary.  
Yes, but only if the local biship is performing to the satisfaction of the Supreme Pontiff.
Twaddle!!

No...Only if the local bishop holds to the truths of revelation and guides his flock in accord with the laws of Christian morality, and Catholic faith.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Personally I most appreciate the way that Arminian Catholics approach Primacy.  Follows a selection of texts from their saints and fathers.  A very different perspective:

http://www.stgregoryarmenian.org/the-armenian-church/primacy/

St. Gregory of Nareg(c. 950 – c.1010) articulated a marvelous and insightful ecclesiology and it is in that context that we must read his understanding of Peter’s primacy.

And his (Jesus Christ) companion of yoke (Cross) and of destiny
The first one, preceding all others and most honoured,
The foundation rock and cornerstone,
The renowned stone beautifully inscribed with the sevenfold confession,
Chosen one,
In the measure -begun and to be fulfilled-
Of sacramental time in this age,
And adorned with glory,
Kephas!
Declared blessed
By the lips of the giver of life,
Made alert and wise
By the beneficence of the Father most high.
Docile in the correct confession
Of the Spirit’s intellection,
He saw the timeless cause
Of the inscrutable birth,
And deservedly 127 was augmented
By the words of the uncreated:
“Blessed are you Simon, scion 128 of Jonah.”
And through him,
To those who hold his same covenant and office,
Was announced the same blessing
From the voice -indescribable gift-
Of the creator. (The Teaching of the Armenian Fathers, p. 385).

St. Nerses Shnorhali (1102-1173) proclaimed this very same Apostolic preaching in its integrity and genuine beauty. The obvious place to begin is his Commentary on Matthew.

Expounding on Peter’s response to his Master’s question, he writes:

Simon the head took the initiative in answering about the theology of the Head, so that no one else might say stupidly what is unfitting and leave an evil memory in this world. Indeed this was the very beginning of things to come and what was going to be said then would endure as constitution and canon to those who followed. This is the reason why the disciple of truth spoke the truth saying: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” (Teaching of the Armenian Fathers, p. 389).

Four points are stated in Christ’s investiture, explains Shnorhali. (Ibidem, p. 391-392). The first is Christ the Lord shows himself equal to the Father: “As the Father granted you to know me, similarly I constitute you Rock of the faith,” Secondly, “I shall build my Church on your confession of faith,” The Church, not only the physical building, but the one built from many peoples on the unity of faith as foundation, that is the Lord, and his Apostles. Thirdly, the power of evil -expressed by the image ‘gates of the underworld’-, that is temptations, shall never move this faith, “as the swells of the sea can not move the rock.” Shnorhali exclaims: “Look at the power of the Lord! He made a fisherman harder and firmer than all rocks! Even if the whole world will attack him he will not move.” Fourth, Christ promises to his Apostles the gifts granted to the prophets: the Father had said to Jeremiah “I put you as a pillar of iron, and as a wall of bronze” (Jer. 1:18). for his people; and the Son constitutes Peter the same for the entire world.

Shnorhali concludes with these words, “He elevated Peter to extremely high honour, because the disciple understood the highest things about Him and revealed His person to be the Son of God and promised him authority that belongs only to God, namely
remitting sins and keeping the Church unshakable through all the swells
breaking on her” (Ibidem, p. 391-392).
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
Also, her response does not take into account the complete phrase 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction'.
And yours neglects the following:

The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary. 

You have to take immediate and universal jurisdiction AND the non-replacement statement together and deal with the paradox before you can even begin to imagine how the hierarchy is to work...or not, sometimes.  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...Does that nullify God's ultimate authority?  Some non-Christians would say so.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
I, for one and as a non-RC, would like to see the RCC return to its more ancient practices.  If we have any hope for reunion, it would be through a more and more traditional RCC.  If they were to progress all the way back to the era of the original schism, I think we could all find reason to overcome the chasm.
I am sure that when Orthodoxy does the same thing, we will watch with interest.  Perhaps even be inspired to respond...in some fashion.

M.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
[size=11pt]Mary, I did not say that defying the pope nullified the power of the pope, but it does nullify one's good standing with the RCC.




I gotta tell you then, there's a boatload of bishops in the Catholic Church who ain't got the memo!!
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So, why not just dump the whole notion of Petrine supremacy and declare all bishops be equal?  That seems to be the implication of what you are saying... 

elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
[size=11pt]Mary, I did not say that defying the pope nullified the power of the pope, but it does nullify one's good standing with the RCC.




I gotta tell you then, there's a boatload of bishops in the Catholic Church who ain't got the memo!!
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mary, how many new proclamations of dogma have arisen on the RC side since 1054?

elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
I, for one and as a non-RC, would like to see the RCC return to its more ancient practices.  If we have any hope for reunion, it would be through a more and more traditional RCC.  If they were to progress all the way back to the era of the original schism, I think we could all find reason to overcome the chasm.
I am sure that when Orthodoxy does the same thing, we will watch with interest.  Perhaps even be inspired to respond...in some fashion.

M.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.


elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Also, her response does not take into account the complete phrase 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction'.
And yours neglects the following:

The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary. 

You have to take immediate and universal jurisdiction AND the non-replacement statement together and deal with the paradox before you can even begin to imagine how the hierarchy is to work...or not, sometimes.  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...Does that nullify God's ultimate authority?  Some non-Christians would say so.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Cavaradossi said:
Peter J said:
I wonder if we could all agree not to bring in any more new topics on this thread, in the hope that old matters could be settled?
Wishful thinking :laugh:
True. But maybe repeating the questions will lead to them getting noticed. For example:

Peter J said:
Hi elijahmaria. I'm glad to see the conversation has come back to created grace -- I was worried that you had missed or forgotten my question:

Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Peter J said:
I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.
Torrell would agree with you.  I suppose what I was remembering was the text of a lecture where the instructor indicated that the phrase created grace was never used by St. Thomas without the explanation that is offered in Torrell's text below.  I went back and listened to the pertinent section of the lecture and found that I had conflated two ideas and drawn the wrong conclusion.  Nevertheless the notion of created grace is not what Orthodox believers generally say that it is in fact:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9s4qJ78nzW8C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Does+Aquinas+use+the+phrase+created+grace&source=bl&ots=rfgAVqHU82&sig=JdWlRNi-OYBUbDno6ITjxzUji4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QMcYT6O6JuHx0gGg2rjqCw&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Does%20Aquinas%20use%20the%20phrase%20created%20grace&f=false

I clicked on the link, but then I decided not to wade through several paragraphs. Perhaps you could tell us what conclusion you draw from that article. Does it support:

elijahmaria said:
There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.
?
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
FatherGiryus said:
Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.
How so?

As for finding "CEO" in RC canon law, you won't. I think that's part of the point Mary was making.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.


Peter J said:
FatherGiryus said:
Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.
How so?

As for finding "CEO" in RC canon law, you won't. I think that's part of the point Mary was making.
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Peter J said:
FatherGiryus said:
Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.
How so?

As for finding "CEO" in RC canon law, you won't. I think that's part of the point Mary was making.
One can be a CEO without calling oneself a CEO.

PP
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
FatherGiryus said:
[size=11pt]Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.


I don't know what was said on that other thread, so I'll limit my comments to the issue of Mary saying
"Bishops can and do defy the pope."
You're reading this saying that it's common, but in fact she only said that it does happen (which is really stating the obvious).
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Peter J said:
FatherGiryus said:
[size=11pt]Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.


I don't know what was said on that other thread, so I'll limit my comments to the issue of Mary saying
"Bishops can and do defy the pope."
You're reading this saying that it's common, but in fact she only said that it does happen (which is really stating the obvious).


True, but the way she stated it, and in its context, it seemed, at least to me that she was intimating that it was permissable to do so with no repercussions. Now I could be wrong, but that is how I took it.

PP
 

J Michael

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Marylan
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Er, yes.

He's taking a sentence completely out of context and making of it a non-truth.  It certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and pot-stirring.
 
This sentence of mine which is fuelling discussion.... would someone please quote it.  I haven't the foggiest idea what sentence we are discussing.   :laugh:
I may be guilty of a) being confused, and b) causing further confusion because of that.  If so, please accept my most humble apologies.

What happened was this:  You (Fr. Ambrose) quoted Mary in reply #381 as saying there is "no magisterium as an office..." and said by way of reply that "The Code of Canon Law certainly speaks of the Magisterium.  Canon Law speaks of its acts and it requires submission and obedience to its teachings and decisions."  In reply #391, I quoted this and wrote, "Did anyone say there was *not* a Magisterium?"

Then, it just went downhill from there, I'm afraid  :-[ :(.  What can I say...I'm a man and am therefor inherently incapable of multi-tasking  ::) :-[, which is what I was doing attempting to do when I read/wrote all of that.  I'll try to be more careful in future  ;).

I think the point that I was trying to make was that yes, there *is* a Magisterium, and *no*, it does not exist in a physical space with a door, walls, a phone, email, windows, etc., which, it seemed to me, someone, somewhere was trying to imply by way of misunderstanding just what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is and how it functions.  Phew...!

I hope I've cleared up that little mystery  ;).  And, again, apologies for my own confusion and any I may have caused!
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That's what it looked like to me, too.

primuspilus said:
Peter J said:
FatherGiryus said:
[size=11pt]Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.


I don't know what was said on that other thread, so I'll limit my comments to the issue of Mary saying
"Bishops can and do defy the pope."
You're reading this saying that it's common, but in fact she only said that it does happen (which is really stating the obvious).


True, but the way she stated it, and in its context, it seemed, at least to me that she was intimating that it was permissable to do so with no repercussions. Now I could be wrong, but that is how I took it.

PP
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
Well, he should...

I don't think anyone wants to see this as the face of the Roman Catholic Church.








PS- I'm not posting this to embarrass RCs, but to underline the importance of maintaining the sacredness of what is sacred.


Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism. 
I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit here. I don't recall him ever calling it the greatest threat to Catholicism.
You can't embarrass us, Father.  This is not the normative face of the Novus Ordo.  There are places where I live where the liturgy is chanted facing east and in Latin by monk-hermits.  If there are bishops in the United States where this was the norm then God bless them all.  But I looked for another face of the Church and found it.  I would guess you've never looked.

M.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
[size=11pt]Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.



This is how you understood it.  This is not at all what I was saying.  But I think the clarification should happen in another thread.

But I repeat:  What you have said here is NOTHING that I would say or think about in any way.  

It is clearly a moment where you missed my message entirely and replaced it with one which makes sense in the way you've constructed your image of the Catholic Church.

We do not exist in the image and likeness you construct for us...sad to say... ;)
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.
Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

:D

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
25
Points
48
elijahmaria said:
xariskai said:
At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???
[/size]
That's not my claim.

M.
So you're not saying the pope wasn't responsible (quote above)

...just that it was not implemented by the papal office? (quote below)

elijahmaria said:
The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church...

M.
"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do."  -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Cf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

Given this, in what way are we to suppose (quoting you from the same original post) "The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world..." in the case of Novus Ordo?
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,388
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.  ::)
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
biro said:
Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.  ::)
Probably I heard.  I was at a restaurant last month with two RC priest friends and a close lay friend who was the chairwoman of the now defunct diocesan liturgical commission.  It was the topic of conversation.  But I do believe I had read a lot about it previously, while it was in the pipeline.  Grief,  If I look under this pile of books, I think I have a copy!  :laugh:
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mary, I'm too young to use the word 'twaddle.'  Never used it, never will.  ;)

elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.
Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

:D

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
FatherGiryus said:
Mary, I'm too young to use the word 'twaddle.'  Never used it, never will.  ;)
I brought the word in in message 435.

elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.
Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

:D

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary
[/quote]
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You mean she can't tell us apart?!?  What do you mean, we all look the same?!?  :laugh:

Irish Hermit said:
FatherGiryus said:
Mary, I'm too young to use the word 'twaddle.'  Never used it, never will.  ;)
I brought the word in in message 435.

elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.
Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

:D

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary
[/quote]
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
elijahmaria said:
  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...
I know that some bishops have been excommunicated from the RCC. But
which RC bishops today defy the pope and defy God and still are in good standing in the RCC?
 
Top