• 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
Again, an interesting insight.  This happens a lot with you, Mary.  You write things in a very general way, then expect we are supposed to get your specific meaning.

We also read for ourselves documents from the RCC church, double-check with other RC sites, and yet you routinely come up with some other interpretation that is not at all present in the text.  Then you get upset because we do not see what you see invisibly present, and it would seem a vast majority of RCs don't seem to see what you see either.

I am still waiting for your sources on this theory of yours that Roman Catholic bishops deceived Medieval RCs by issuing temporal indulgences when the bishops in fact did not believe in temporal indulgences.  I think your representations of the RCC are distortions when you are unable to present clear facts or try to tell us that something which is very clear says something entirely different.

While I do not believe in the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction and other doctrines of the RCC the diverge from the tradition of the Church, I do not have animosity or hatred for RCs.  Yet, you continue to treat me like I am some sort of 'mean person' who is purposefully and wickedly insulting the Church of Rome.

I just don't get why you have to become so emotionally tangled up in your dealings here.  There is going to be disagreement, which is why it is an 'Orthodox-Catholic Forum' not a 'Catholic-Catholic Forum.'



elijahmaria said:
elijahmaria said:
Haven't heard much of that from my fellow Catholics either.

<snip>
I am referring to Peter J's "trump card" comment here specifically actually and in fact...
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
elijahmaria said:
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Pope John Paul II was the Supreme Legislator in a formal sense that is reflective of the dignity and oversight function of his office. 
What about Pope Benedict XVI?
Oh for cryin' out loud: 
That's pretty puzzling, but, okay. I guess this just shows once again that I'm not very good at interpreting OCnet-speak.

elijahmaria said:
The title of Legislator is an honorific which was given to Pope John Paul II BECAUSE he promulgated the current western Code of Canons of the Catholic Church.  Not that he wrote them.  Not that he authorized or even read every jot and tittle of the canons themselves, but because he put his name to the document when it was promulgated.
Really? (rhetorical question)
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter, Mary has her own unique communication style!  ;)

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch.  That's how it works everywhere else.  Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

:laugh:


Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Pope John Paul II was the Supreme Legislator in a formal sense that is reflective of the dignity and oversight function of his office. 
What about Pope Benedict XVI?
Oh for cryin' out loud: 
That's pretty puzzling, but, okay. I guess this just shows once again that I'm not very good at interpreting OCnet-speak.

elijahmaria said:
The title of Legislator is an honorific which was given to Pope John Paul II BECAUSE he promulgated the current western Code of Canons of the Catholic Church.  Not that he wrote them.  Not that he authorized or even read every jot and tittle of the canons themselves, but because he put his name to the document when it was promulgated.
Really? (rhetorical question)
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
Peter, Mary has her own unique communication style!   ;)

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch.  That's how it works everywhere else.  Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

:laugh:
That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch. 

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times.  It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text.  It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching.  It is not a threatening text.  Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
FatherGiryus said:
Peter, Mary has her own unique communication style!   ;)

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch.  That's how it works everywhere else.  Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

:laugh:
That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch. 

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times.  It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text.  It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching.  It is not a threatening text.  Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Some of the notes you write that misrepresent my thoughts and ideas and that try to make it appear as though I am upset or angry are, from my perspective, unduly and inaccurately invasive and argumentative.  So I will not respond to them except to say what I say here.  Eventually I will stop responding to them at all as I have stopped responding to some of Father Ambrose's broadsides for the same reasons.

Mary

FatherGiryus said:
Again, an interesting insight.  This happens a lot with you, Mary.  You write things in a very general way, then expect we are supposed to get your specific meaning.

We also read for ourselves documents from the RCC church, double-check with other RC sites, and yet you routinely come up with some other interpretation that is not at all present in the text.  Then you get upset because we do not see what you see invisibly present, and it would seem a vast majority of RCs don't seem to see what you see either.

I am still waiting for your sources on this theory of yours that Roman Catholic bishops deceived Medieval RCs by issuing temporal indulgences when the bishops in fact did not believe in temporal indulgences.  I think your representations of the RCC are distortions when you are unable to present clear facts or try to tell us that something which is very clear says something entirely different.

While I do not believe in the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction and other doctrines of the RCC the diverge from the tradition of the Church, I do not have animosity or hatred for RCs.  Yet, you continue to treat me like I am some sort of 'mean person' who is purposefully and wickedly insulting the Church of Rome.

I just don't get why you have to become so emotionally tangled up in your dealings here.  There is going to be disagreement, which is why it is an 'Orthodox-Catholic Forum' not a 'Catholic-Catholic Forum.'



elijahmaria said:
elijahmaria said:
Haven't heard much of that from my fellow Catholics either.

<snip>
I am referring to Peter J's "trump card" comment here specifically actually and in fact...
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Peter, Mary has her own unique communication style!   ;)

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch.  That's how it works everywhere else.  Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

:laugh:
That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch. 

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times.  It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text.  It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching.  It is not a threatening text.  Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.
I am going to have to beat my chest on this on. 

I checked with Pete Vere and it is as I expected that all bishops are the legislators of the Church, which is really my point in all of this and that the pope can then been seen as the supreme legislator by virtue of the papal office.  So I am wrong to say that it is a singular case where the pope can be called supreme legislator.

However I am not wrong in expressing the idea that Supreme Legislator is not a papal title.  Again it is with the understanding that the Pope would be the court of last resort in any kind of universal or local legal dispute in the Church.

Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience.  Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary.  So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker.  If you are a priest you may get a letter of warning rather than any satisfactory response to your claim.  You'd better be able to afford a canon lawyer and also to find one willing to take your case if you want any kind of redress for an episcopal wrong-doing.  It will not come from other bishops, nor will it come from Rome.  Only one the rarest of circumstances is justice ever really done in the Church.  A look at the decades that it took to get hold of the sexual excesses of Catholic priests should be indicative.  Bishops  covered their own liabilities and some of the wicked ones used the scandal as a way to get rid of pesky parish priests.

It's this kind of thing that the continual emphasis on supreme anything with respect to the pope tends to ignore or be ignorant of, and it is this sort of thing that makes some of the decisions in the Church so difficult to understand in general.  It is dangerous to press the point because it hides another and sometimes far worse reality.

IF a local bishop were to find himself in a situation where it might benefit him to ask the pope for a judgment in a given situation THEN the pope MIGHT offer a judgment, and it is then that the judgment is final and without recourse.  But a pope is not going to interfere between a priest and his bishop without being asked BY THE BISHOP, or a majority of the bishops in the local synodal region...for example.

Legislator in the Church is a formal episcopal function, though it is not the primary function by any means and is always delegated at the level of the local sees and at the primatial see.

M.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That begs the question: can someone other than a pope be a Supreme Legislator?

elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Peter, Mary has her own unique communication style!   ;)

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch.  That's how it works everywhere else.  Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

:laugh:
That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch. 

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times.  It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text.  It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching.  It is not a threatening text.  Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Fascinating!  However, the pope maintains the ability, whether he exercises it or not, to act directly through his 'immediate and ordinary jurisdiction.'  It is very clear that he ultimately can exercise the 'nuclear option,' though for practical reasons (like not wanting to scare the bishops her relies on to carry out his ministry) he doesn't have to. 

The description of the buffers is rather sad, though.


elijahmaria said:
elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
Peter, Mary has her own unique communication style!   ;)

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch.  That's how it works everywhere else.  Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

:laugh:
That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch. 

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times.  It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text.  It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching.  It is not a threatening text.  Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.
I am going to have to beat my chest on this on. 

I checked with Pete Vere and it is as I expected that all bishops are the legislators of the Church, which is really my point in all of this and that the pope can then been seen as the supreme legislator by virtue of the papal office.   So I am wrong to say that it is a singular case where the pope can be called supreme legislator.

However I am not wrong in expressing the idea that Supreme Legislator is not a papal title.  Again it is with the understanding that the Pope would be the court of last resort in any kind of universal or local legal dispute in the Church.

Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience.   Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary.  So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker.  If you are a priest you may get a letter of warning rather than any satisfactory response to your claim.  You'd better be able to afford a canon lawyer and also to find one willing to take your case if you want any kind of redress for an episcopal wrong-doing.  It will not come from other bishops, nor will it come from Rome.  Only one the rarest of circumstances is justice ever really done in the Church.  A look at the decades that it took to get hold of the sexual excesses of Catholic priests should be indicative.  Bishops  covered their own liabilities and some of the wicked ones used the scandal as a way to get rid of pesky parish priests.

It's this kind of thing that the continual emphasis on supreme anything with respect to the pope tends to ignore or be ignorant of, and it is this sort of thing that makes some of the decisions in the Church so difficult to understand in general.  It is dangerous to press the point because it hides another and sometimes far worse reality.

IF a local bishop were to find himself in a situation where it might benefit him to ask the pope for a judgment in a given situation THEN the pope MIGHT offer a judgment, and it is then that the judgment is final and without recourse.  But a pope is not going to interfere between a priest and his bishop without being asked BY THE BISHOP, or a majority of the bishops in the local synodal region...for example.

Legislator in the Church is a formal episcopal function, though it is not the primary function by any means and is always delegated at the level of the local sees and at the primatial see.

M.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You can stop anytime you like!  :laugh:

Again, the problem is that you at times promulgate your opinions as facts, and can't provide sources for your assertions.  So, I simply have much more doubts about what you have to say when you claim to know the truth.

The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged.  You do not.

I have shown you where I've found my opinions on the RCC.  I get them from RCC sources.  You might not like what I get, but I get them from your equals and superiors in your Church.


elijahmaria said:
Some of the notes you write that misrepresent my thoughts and ideas and that try to make it appear as though I am upset or angry are, from my perspective, unduly and inaccurately invasive and argumentative.  So I will not respond to them except to say what I say here.  Eventually I will stop responding to them at all as I have stopped responding to some of Father Ambrose's broadsides for the same reasons.

Mary

FatherGiryus said:
Again, an interesting insight.  This happens a lot with you, Mary.  You write things in a very general way, then expect we are supposed to get your specific meaning.

We also read for ourselves documents from the RCC church, double-check with other RC sites, and yet you routinely come up with some other interpretation that is not at all present in the text.  Then you get upset because we do not see what you see invisibly present, and it would seem a vast majority of RCs don't seem to see what you see either.

I am still waiting for your sources on this theory of yours that Roman Catholic bishops deceived Medieval RCs by issuing temporal indulgences when the bishops in fact did not believe in temporal indulgences.  I think your representations of the RCC are distortions when you are unable to present clear facts or try to tell us that something which is very clear says something entirely different.

While I do not believe in the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction and other doctrines of the RCC the diverge from the tradition of the Church, I do not have animosity or hatred for RCs.  Yet, you continue to treat me like I am some sort of 'mean person' who is purposefully and wickedly insulting the Church of Rome.

I just don't get why you have to become so emotionally tangled up in your dealings here.  There is going to be disagreement, which is why it is an 'Orthodox-Catholic Forum' not a 'Catholic-Catholic Forum.'



elijahmaria said:
elijahmaria said:
Haven't heard much of that from my fellow Catholics either.

<snip>
I am referring to Peter J's "trump card" comment here specifically actually and in fact...
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
elijahmaria said:
Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience.   Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary.  So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker.
This was one of those rare times when I had to remind myself that I was reading one of your posts and not one of Fr. Ambrose's posts.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience.   Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary.  So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker.
This was one of those rare times when I had to remind myself that I was reading one of your posts and not one of Fr. Ambrose's posts.
It is real.  However sad, it is real.  The laws of the Church are written with the moral presumption that those who write the laws, the bishops, will be subject the law and not stand above or outside of it.

Bishops, it is devoutly wished, must be moral and doctrinally sound souls in order for any of the principles of the ecclesia to work as they are intended.

Show me a Church where that is not the case in principle, and where there is no struggle in practice.

I prefer my struggles to be based in reality though.  Not manufactured to please a crowd.

M.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Not a lie, Mary.  We are all still waiting for you to cite your sources on Indulgences and your contention that RCC bishops did not stand up for the truth regarding temporal punishments...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40563.msg661662.html#msg661662

Sorry you forgot about this, but I did not.


elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged.  You do not.
That is an outright falsehood and it's personal.

I'd rather be wrong than sinful.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
FatherGiryus said:
The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged.
I doubt any poster always finds sources when challenged. (I don't mean this any slight to Fr. Ambrose.)
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My mistake.  How about this:

"The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose almost always finds sources when challenged, and when he doesn't, he admits as much."

Unlike Mary, I have never observed Fr. Ambrose utterly refuse to cite his sources and get insulted when asked.  Not that I read everything he writes, but that is what I have seen.


Peter J said:
FatherGiryus said:
The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged.
I doubt any poster always finds sources when challenged. (I don't mean this any slight to Fr. Ambrose.)
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
I told you then Father that you presumed too much and have misinterpreted what I said.  I also told you that I would not try to change your mind or explain then.  I do not intend to try now.  It is too badly mangled by your over-lay on what I MUST have meant or said.  There's no MUST about it save in your own mind.

M.


FatherGiryus said:
Not a lie, Mary.  We are all still waiting for you to cite your sources on Indulgences and your contention that RCC bishops did not stand up for the truth regarding temporal punishments...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40563.msg661662.html#msg661662

Sorry you forgot about this, but I did not.


elijahmaria said:
FatherGiryus said:
The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged.  You do not.
That is an outright falsehood and it's personal.

I'd rather be wrong than sinful.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Peter J said:
J Michael, I think you summed it up well: on the one hand the Pope has a trump card, on the other hand he uses it pretty rarely. (Catholics posters, please chime in if you disagree with what I said.)
Personally I think this is crappy way to express the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church but it fits in this group I suppose.

I was trying to drag this stupid discussion up out of the mud of papal biases and WAGs but some of my fellow Catholics prefer to root around in the slops, rather than take the risks of trying to move to dry ground.

M.
There is no try.
"...There is either do or do not."  And Yoda knows what he is talking about on this one. 
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Except for the stuff he heard form a Russian professor somewhere about St. Maximos and refuses to cite the source... (ok, that is the last time I will mention it, Lord willing)...

FatherGiryus said:
My mistake.  How about this:

"The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose almost always finds sources when challenged, and when he doesn't, he admits as much."

Unlike Mary, I have never observed Fr. Ambrose utterly refuse to cite his sources and get insulted when asked.  Not that I read everything he writes, but that is what I have seen.


Peter J said:
FatherGiryus said:
The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged.
I doubt any poster always finds sources when challenged. (I don't mean this any slight to Fr. Ambrose.)
 

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
J Michael said:
primuspilus said:
Since he's muted and can't respond, that seems to me to be a cheap shot.

PP
Fr. Ambrose has actually been banned.  See reply #228 on the "Intentional Misrepresentation" thread.
Then if I read the post above correctly, then it is a cheap shot. Shame.

PP
 
Top