|
0 members (),
262
guests, and
26
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106 |
Armenian Catholic said: Secondly,I wish we would stop talking in power paradigms: "control," "dictates," "decrees." The Orthodox would agree. However, the Pope governs the Catholic church and has control over it just as a bishop does within his own diocese. Your comment strikes at the heart of the difference - the Orthodox want reunion without control over them, the Catholics want reunion with this control. We can wordsmith things all day but when the Pope can appoint the bishops of other Patriarchs, remove those Patriarchs, change doctrine without the consent of other Patriarchs then that is control/authority/whatever. Don't get me wrong - I don't think control or authority are "bad" words necessarily. And I think the Catholics have sincere motives for seeking this. But the Orthodox and the Catholics simply disagree totally on this point.
"Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106 |
DJS said: You identify primacy and immediate jurisdiction with "control". The dimensions of primacy and juridiction extreme interpretation advances nothing; portraying such an interpretation as self-evident is indeed, IMO, a misrepresentation. DJS, where have I misrepresented the situation? Vatican II said the Pope has immediate control over the entire universal church. How have I misrepresented the Catholic position on this? I took it as a given that since a [Catholic] ecumenical council had defined this then it was not up for grabs. Your repeated comments on the the Pope's license to invent doctrine, are simply not consistent with the foundations, proclamation, or practice of the definitions of Vatican I. Bishop Kallistos, talks about Orthodox "...content simply to attack the Roman doctrine of the Papacy (as they understand it)..." Part of the value of dialog is to make sure that "as 'they' understand it" is the same for all of the "theys" in the discussion. DJS, nowhere did I say the Pope could "invent" doctrine nor did I mean to imply such. I have studied the formal definition of papal infallibility per Vatican I and understand all of the nuances of it. I have dialogued with Catholic apologists and had them affirm that I did in fact understand the definition and its nuances. What I *did* say is that the Pope can define doctrine all by himself with or without the consent of other Patriarchs and with or without an ecumenical council. Why has this statement caused offense? It was not meant to - it was just a restatement of the Catholic position. If you have dialogued with hostile people a bit too much recently then put your mind at ease as I am not one of them. 
"Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Dear Eric:
I don't regard anything you posted as offensive or hostile, and hope that I don't sound offended or offensive in my terse e-mailese. I disagree, however, with some of your comments.
The word "control" carries a connotation, as noted by others, that is different than primacy or jurisdiction. Substition of the word "control" is not a neutral swap, and is thus, IMO, a misrepresentation. I did a full-text search of documents from Vatican II; they do not use the word "control" in this context.
I agree that you did not use the word invent, and take it, then, that you agree that the proclamations of Vatican I do not empower to Pope to invent dogma. I am not an apologist, but like others here, merely a layperson. But from your careful reading of the of the texts from Vatican I, I hope you will agree with my point that the idea of the Pope defining doctrine "all by himself" is simply not consistent with the foundations of the declaration,(which recount the importance of bishops and councils in the formulation of doctrine), the proclamation itself (which is specifically a declaration of a council), or practice of formulating doctrine.
djs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3 |
One question has come to my mind, why is it that the TWO LUNGS must have control? I agree that the Roman Catholics do not know much about the byzantine tradition, example of this, Dec. 12, 1999. There was a conference called: Mary's Holiness Unites East and West; and it had the icon or image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Many roman catholics went to the conference and learned very much about the byzantine tradition.
to make it short, this conference had many ups and down, but it was made possible. Why is that we must be divided?
True also that in the RCC there many problems, as well as in the Orthodox Church (forgive my writing, i am from PR still learning english) but if we unite, we can go along with the problems together, new ideas.
this is my opinion, you can not unite if you do not know what you are going to be united with, so, if there can be more conference or talks about byzantine tradition, liturgy, etc. then we can go along with the Holy Father's and the Ecumenical "Patriarca" ( can't say it in English) desire for unity. What do you all thing?
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Tito
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075 |
Friends,
I am starting a new thread for the comment about the filioque "clarification." That's so we don't get all confused on this thread. It's going to be in the "East and West" folder.
In Christ,
anastasios
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Dear Eric: You stated: ...(W)hen the Pope can appoint the bishops of other Patriarchs, remove those Patriarchs, ...then that is
control/authority/whatever. When and where did these happen? AmdG
|
|
|
|
|
