The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
arekeon27, Wenura Ravindu, Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg
5,845 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
4 members (Hutsul, byzanTN, San Nicolas, 1 invisible), 66 guests, and 28 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,168
Posts414,964
Members5,845
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Alex,

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Yes, this was during the sainted pope's Ukraine visit when Patriarch Lubomyr served the Divine Liturgy on a field where thousands had amassed - I saw the video too.
What year was it? When was the first time a correspondence to the Pope or the Vatican from the UGCC referred to the head of the UGCC as Patriarch? I'm just interested to know when the whole Catholic world can officially regard him as Patriarch (according to the prescription of Canon law mentioned in an earlier post).

Quote
So which Ecumenical Council established the later Orthodox patriarchates . . .? wink

Did not the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch establish the Eritrean Orthodox patriarchate? (Good for him, BTW!).
Just my own opinion: I don't believe any of the patriarchates established on the authority of an existing patriarch are the equal of the Patriarchates established, recognized or affirmed by the Ecum Councils (which, naturally, includes the confirmation of the Pope of Rome, of course). This includes the ones the EP established on his authority, the ones the Pope of Rome established on his authority, and the one the Pope of Alexandria established on his authority. I don't think there is anything wrong with Patriarchs establishing other Patriarchates, so long as it is understood that the primordial Patriarchates established by the Ecum Councils have ecclesiastical precedence (not merely honorific) on matters that pertain to the Church universal -- AND, as long as newer patriarchates formally recognize the primacy (a real primacy, not merely honorific) of the head bishop of their mother Church (that's the way it works among the Churches of the Coptic Tradition, btw).

On this principle, I disagree with the pretensions of the MP to be the "third Rome." If anyone can make that claim, it is Alexandria or Antioch, not by a long shot does the ROC deserve such a claim. But I am not really concerned with the position, so much as the fact that the ROC does not seem to sufficiently acknowledge that the EP holds ecclesiastical precedence and primacy in relation to the MP.

God is a God of order, so the Church must reflect good order. The multiplication of patriarchates without a simultaneous acknowledgement of the primacy (a real primacy, not merely honorific) of the mother Church can only lead to the kind of ecclesiastical harangues that goes on among the EOC's.

Quote
In any event, our Synod affirmed that it was a patriarchate and our clergy and hierarchs commemorate him as such at all Divine Liturgies. Good enough for me! smile
As you might know, I'm not a big fan of self-proclamation, but I don't think there is anything wrong with UGCC members regarding him as their Patriarch --- in fact, I think they should.

Blessings

Last edited by mardukm; 10/16/14 06:37 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Originally Posted by Talon
Deep breath, everybody. Don't be led around by the nose ring...

http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/...od-says-english-primate-5813709247086592

Just another "poor translation" out of countless "poor translations", right? Let's disregard the Pope's ad hoc appointment of 6 moderate to liberal Cardinals to the synod to balance out the elected orthodox cardinals. Let's ignore that the Pope basically referred to defenders of orthodox Catholic doctrines as Pharisees.

Let mas ask this: during the tumultuous debates leading up to Humanae Vitae, did Pope Paul VI ever give any hints that he supported contraception?

Well, the pontificate of Pope Paul VI was really all about a balancing act between liberals and conservatives, wasn't it?

Humanae Vitae caught many Catholics and Catholic bishops' conferences off guard. I remember Catholics actually getting up in Church during sermons proclaiming it - and leaving right there and then. Other Catholic bishops' conferences, in their "interpretation" of it (as in Austria) tended to simply tell their faithful not to be overly concerned about it.

And so very many Catholics worldwide practice artificial birth control, then and now. A traditional Catholic canonist, who went on to become a bishop, told me that when someone came to him in confession and said that he or she "was doing the best they could" but used artificial birth control - then, he said, he had to take things into consideration etc.

Pope Francis' approach is a welcoming one that has affected many, including a number of my friends and acquaintances who are now interested in Catholicism. I know because they keep asking me for catechisms and the like such as my wife's aunt who is an avowed agnostic - so far.

Alex

Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 10/16/14 08:32 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Dear Marduk,

Thank you for your vote of support! I'll tell the leadership of the UGCC that you believe they should call our primate a patriarch and ask them to take this under advisement immediately! wink

But seriously, thank you for all your painstaking thoughtfulness in all your posts. smile

Alex

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
You're welcome, brother. I also wanted to clarify that when I said I am not a fan of self-proclamation, I meant that I'm not a fan of some local Church self-proclaiming patriarchal status and trying to force it down the rest of the Church's throat. The image I have of the UGCC is one of great humility, which is why I believe there is nothing wrong with members of your Church regarding your head bishop as a patriarch. Your Church really does deserve to have patriarchal status, if not for the numbers, then for its long suffering, and for its faith.

Blessings

P.S. Enough of that - the thread's not about the UGCC. grin

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Marduk,

Thank you for your vote of support! I'll tell the leadership of the UGCC that you believe they should call our primate a patriarch and ask them to take this under advisement immediately! wink

But seriously, thank you for all your painstaking thoughtfulness in all your posts. smile

Alex

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Originally Posted by Talon
Deep breath, everybody. Don't be led around by the nose ring...

http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/...od-says-english-primate-5813709247086592

Just another "poor translation" out of countless "poor translations", right? Let's disregard the Pope's ad hoc appointment of 6 moderate to liberal Cardinals to the synod to balance out the elected orthodox cardinals. Let's ignore that the Pope basically referred to defenders of orthodox Catholic doctrines as Pharisees.

Let mas ask this: during the tumultuous debates leading up to Humanae Vitae, did Pope Paul VI ever give any hints that he supported contraception?

Brother, leading up to the Synod, has Pope Francis given any hints that he supports homosexuality? The only remark I can think of that would come anywhere close to suggesting so would be the infamous and now oft regurgitated "Who am I to judge?" comment. And I admit that it was an unfortunate statement for its ambiguity. But other than this extremely brief faux pax...???

The upside to liberals is that they tend to be much bigger on the "doing" and the mercy side of the faith than conservatives. And that's critical, if we're to believe our Lord - that it's those who DO his will (which includes showing mercy at appropriate moments) that will make it to Heaven, not those who merely call him Lord and have all their doctrinal ducks lined up in a straight row.

The Church should not have "liberals" or "conservatives" to begin with. These are political terms, not religious ones. We should all simply be Catholic - faithful to God's prescriptions for human life.

Whatever the case, in the current state of affairs, both sides could really stand to learn from each other - liberals how to take more action and put more of one's heart into doing so, and conservatives how to do all that with clarity and proper direction, rather than riding on a deceptive cloud of amorphous feeling...

Wow...There's your phrase for the day: Amorphous feeling.

wink

Peace be with you.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear DMD,

You are truly fair!

So, I just wanted to step in here for a second and second that comment. I really, really appreciate the "incessantly" even-handed tone of your posts, DMD. Thank you for them.


Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Pope Francis' approach is a welcoming one that has affected many, including a number of my friends and acquaintances who are now interested in Catholicism. I know because they keep asking me for catechisms and the like such as my wife's aunt who is an avowed agnostic - so far.

People don't care how much you know til they know how much you care, goes the saying. And it's so often true...

Pope Francis has done an unparalleled job of manifesting Christ-like behavior without compromising truth at the same time. May God grant us many, many years with this Saint.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 6
T
twf Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 6
If you check the Catholic news feeds, there's been a huge outcry from many of the bishops in regards to the draft document. It seems a lot of the bishops feel that the content did not at all reflect their discussions. The bishops have pushed back and the powers that be have now agreed to release all the reports drafted by the various "circuli minores". Here's a much better passage addressing homosexuality from Cardinal Schonborn's group
5 We have reiterated our respect and welcome homosexuals and have denounced the unjust and often violent discrimination they have suffered and still suffer at times, including in the Church, alas But that does not mean that the Church must legitimize homosexual practices, much less recognize, as do some states, a so-called homosexual “marriage”. Instead, we denounce all maneuvers of certain international organizations to impose, through financial blackmail, to poor countries of laws establishing a so-called homosexual “marriage”.


twf #408922 10/16/14 04:22 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,882
Likes: 25
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,882
Likes: 25
Originally Posted by twf
If you check the Catholic news feeds, there's been a huge outcry from many of the bishops in regards to the draft document. It seems a lot of the bishops feel that the content did not at all reflect their discussions. The bishops have pushed back and the powers that be have now agreed to release all the reports drafted by the various "circuli minores". Here's a much better passage addressing homosexuality from Cardinal Schonborn's group
5 We have reiterated our respect and welcome homosexuals and have denounced the unjust and often violent discrimination they have suffered and still suffer at times, including in the Church, alas But that does not mean that the Church must legitimize homosexual practices, much less recognize, as do some states, a so-called homosexual “marriage”. Instead, we denounce all maneuvers of certain international organizations to impose, through financial blackmail, to poor countries of laws establishing a so-called homosexual “marriage”.

Sounds like the process that went on at Vatican II. The Curia, at that time, thought bishops would rubber-stamp documents they had prepared together with the underlying assumptions. The problem then, as now, is that bishops do take their responsibility that comes with their office seriously. It's interesting that it seems His Holiness appointed a number of "progressives"--read "liberals"--but the discussion groups elected more conservative members to lead the discussions.

Bob

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by Talon
Courage has always had two thumbs up from the Church and always will.
Which is what makes it signifigant that [the leader of Courage has stated]
Quote
I am most concerned for the people who are part of the Courage apostolate. They trust that what the Church teaches on homosexuality is true. They are striving with God’s grace to live that teaching, amid other voices — including their own families — telling them to live another way and find a partner.

They look at this language with dismay, concern and some pain. They count on the voice of the Church to keep them strong and reassure them that the choices they have made are true. The Church gives them strength to persevere.

I also think about our EnCourage parents and their struggle to trust what the Church teaches is true, when there are many other voices in the legislature and judiciary that want to normalize same-sex unions.
And I sympathize with his concern - to a degree. Those of weaker faith are more easily manipulated than those with stronger faith, and we are all our brothers' keeper to some extent in life. So, we should all be concerned...a LITTLE bit.

However, the expression "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind here for me since the inherent sinfulness of homosexual activity is as basic to life as the Trinity
Brother Talon,

If everyone saw things from this perspective, there would be *no* issue whatsoever. However, as I posted earlier in this thread:
Quote
In 1970, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders. Since that time, more and more people have interpreted this action as meaning that "science" has "proven" that homosexuality is "perfectly normal." Now, once this proposition is accepted as "true," it necessarily follows that *everything* society does to honor and celebrate love between man and woman should now apply equally to "love" between two men or two women.

This is what we're up against!

Not long ago, an accusation of homosexuality could be career ending in politics, as well as most areas of business (the exceptions being fashion and entertainment). People with SSAs, for the most part, either acted them out discreetly, or not at all. The 1970 decision of the APA had far-reaching implications, and almost immediately the Gay Rights movement was born. This movement has continued gaining strength every year since then, and their goal is nothing less than being treated as equal in every respect to straight people (with regard to both the law and other social institutions).

The problem here is that people are listening. A number of polls have been taken on this subject, and they have all shown a consistent pattern in which the younger someone is, the more likely it is that he/she sees no reason to discriminate in any way against LGBT people or regard their behavior as unacceptable (and it's not that they change as they get older, the numbers just keep going down).

So, what does this mean for the Church? Only that we're facing a world in which the idea of homosesuality being sinful seems increasingly ridiculous, intolerant and indefensible. In such an atmosphere, the slightest hint that the Church has "changed its position" will be taken as meaning just that, and this means that any Catholic that tries to hold out will now be ridiculed and accused of "rejecting the Church's teaching" (and bishops will have a hard time keeping gay priests in check).

Originally Posted by Talon
for one thing, and the pope and bishops are guardians of the truth, not authors of it ...
The problem here is that in the world of politics, the concept of "truth" has little meaning apart from what side you take on a given issue. People generally believe what seems credible to them, based on what they understand to be true (which usually means what's been presented to them in a consistent manner).

Furthermore, ISTM there was *no* reason to go publishing a working document like that, and whoever was responsible for doing so was either woefully ignorant, or knew it would have the effect I described--and wanted that effect. (Not that I wouldn't still hope that's not the case, but ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
I just had a lengthy discussion with a friend from the local Catholic apologetics group. He had the same misgivings about the Synod document. I think I helped calm him down.

I explained to him that the Synod document was not about accepting homosexuality per se, but about respecting homosexuals as persons. It was not about approving of their sin, but about respecting their intrinsic human dignity.

SSA is, let's be real, considered a SIN by many Catholics, even though the Church teaches that SSA per se is not a sin. I think this document will be helpful in giving homosexuals the respect they deserve as human beings. This will inspire homosexuals to find a home in the Church, instead of rebelling against her.

I imagine people will call me a "liberal" for that. Oh well.

Blessings

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Furthermore, ISTM there was *no* reason to go publishing a working document like that, and whoever was responsible for doing so was either woefully ignorant, or knew it would have the effect I described--and wanted that effect. (Not that I wouldn't still hope that's not the case, but ...)
That's a REALLY, REALLY good point, brother Epiphanius.

Blessings

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Brother Talon,

If everyone saw things from this perspective, there would be *no* issue whatsoever. However, as I posted earlier in this thread:
Quote
In 1970, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders. Since that time, more and more people have interpreted this action as meaning that "science" has "proven" that homosexuality is "perfectly normal." Now, once this proposition is accepted as "true," it necessarily follows that *everything* society does to honor and celebrate love between man and woman should now apply equally to "love" between two men or two women.

This is what we're up against!

Not long ago, an accusation of homosexuality could be career ending in politics, as well as most areas of business (the exceptions being fashion and entertainment). People with SSAs, for the most part, either acted them out discreetly, or not at all. The 1970 decision of the APA had far-reaching implications, and almost immediately the Gay Rights movement was born. This movement has continued gaining strength every year since then, and their goal is nothing less than being treated as equal in every respect to straight people (with regard to both the law and other social institutions).

The problem here is that people are listening. A number of polls have been taken on this subject, and they have all shown a consistent pattern in which the younger someone is, the more likely it is that he/she sees no reason to discriminate in any way against LGBT people or regard their behavior as unacceptable (and it's not that they change as they get older, the numbers just keep going down).

So, what does this mean for the Church? Only that we're facing a world in which the idea of homosesuality being sinful seems increasingly ridiculous, intolerant and indefensible. In such an atmosphere, the slightest hint that the Church has "changed its position" will be taken as meaning just that, and this means that any Catholic that tries to hold out will now be ridiculed and accused of "rejecting the Church's teaching" (and bishops will have a hard time keeping gay priests in check).

Originally Posted by Talon
for one thing, and the pope and bishops are guardians of the truth, not authors of it ...
The problem here is that in the world of politics, the concept of "truth" has little meaning apart from what side you take on a given issue. People generally believe what seems credible to them, based on what they understand to be true (which usually means what's been presented to them in a consistent manner).

Furthermore, ISTM there was *no* reason to go publishing a working document like that, and whoever was responsible for doing so was either woefully ignorant, or knew it would have the effect I described--and wanted that effect. (Not that I wouldn't still hope that's not the case, but ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon, I hear and understand what you're saying, but feel compelled to encourage some perspective later this weekend, when I have more time.

In the interim, you were right, the document never should have been released to the public. Thought this piece was interesting...

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/evidence-emerges-of-an-engineered-synod

The piece having been offered to the forum, PLEASE, I beg everyone not to use it to start/perpetuate a mean-spirited "liberal versus conservatives" war or anything of that sort, here in this thread (or anywhere else). Remember that our battle is NOT against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of this present darkness per Ephesians 6. Recall also the example of Christ himself who, though he knew full well that Judas was a traitor continued to show him nothing but love in spite of it all.


Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by mardukm
SSA is, let's be real, considered a SIN by many Catholics, even though the Church teaches that SSA per se is not a sin.

Exaaaactly. When conservatives hammer home the need to get doctrine straight, this is one great example of how they too often miss the mark in spite of themselves.

Quote
I think this document will be helpful in giving homosexuals the respect they deserve as human beings. This will inspire homosexuals to find a home in the Church, instead of rebelling against her.

Indeed. Here's an awesome talk by a former homosexual on this very matter.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/how-should-we-respond-to-homosexuality-pt1

It's completely worth the $2 fee for the MP3. (And the $9 for the CD for that matter.) I really encourage everyone to listen carefully and to circulate the link far and wide...

Quote
I imagine people will call me a "liberal" for that. Oh well.

Blessings

Oh well, is right...Keep up the good work, brother.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
P.S. "Former homosexual"...For whatever it's worth to anyone, all the current evidence seems to suggest that there are those with SSA who can be healed of their disorientation, and those who cannot. Just as with many other ailments in life, while God heals some, it seems that others are left with their ailment so that it will draw them closer to the Lord.

Last edited by Talon; 10/17/14 12:53 PM.
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
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 - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5