The Procession of the Holy Spirit -- An Orthodox View
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
Friends in Christ:
Consider the following discourse by an Eastern Orthodox priest. It
explains the procession quite clearly and is one of the easiest to
understand that I have found on the Net.
Al Green
Orthodoxy: Telling the Truth Since A.D. 33
---------------------------------------------------------
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy the "Filioque"
---------------------------------------------------------
Of old, the Church, in her teaching on the interrelationships of the
Persons of the Holy Trinity, has taught that the Third Person of the
Holy
Trinity, the Holy Spirit, pre-eternally proceeds only from the First
Person
of the Holy Trinity God the Father. This teaching was based on
Christ's
words, that the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26).
This
doctrinal formula was inserted into the Symbol of Faith at the Second
Ecumenical Council (381). After that, this Council, and likewise both
the
Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, having confirmed the trueness of
the
Symbol of faith, forbade any additions to be made to the
NicaecConstantinopolitan Symbol. However, in the year 589, at a local
Spanish council in Toledo, an addition was made to the Symbol of Faith,
according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father,
but
also from the Son (qui a Patre Filioque procedit). This insertion became
known as the "Filioque", and subsequently became one of the main causes
of
the Western Christianity's departure from Orthodoxy.
It was decided at the Toledo Council of the Spanish Church to unite to
the
Church the West Goths, who confessed the Arian heresy, and this
circumstance served as the occasion for this addition. Since the
teaching
on the inequality of the Son with the Father was the fundamental point
of
the Arian heresy, the Spanish theologians at the Toledo Council,
insisting
on the full equality of the Son and the Father, decided to place the Son
also in the same relationship to the Holy Spirit that the Father has to
Him; that is, they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and
the Son. In the seventh and eighth centuries, the addition of the
Filioque
to the Symbol of Faith spread in the Frankish churches. At first, the
Roman
popes refused to recognized the Filioque. Thus, in the ninth century,
Pope
Leo III rejected the request of the Emperor Charlemagne to insert this
addition into the Symbol of Faith. Moreover, the Bishop of Rome even
ordered that the text of the NicaeoConstantinopolitan Symbol of Faith
be
engraved on two silver tablets and that these tablets be set up at the
tomb
of the Apostles Peter and Paul with the inscription: "I, Leo, placed
these
tablets out of love for the Orthodox faith and to safeguard it".
But in spite of this, the false teaching on the procession of the Holy
Spirit also from the Son continued to spread in the Western churches
right
up to the year 1014, when the Roman Pope Benedict VIII finally inserted
it
into the Symbol of Faith.
Many presentday Christians consider that the dispute around the
addition
of one word to the Symbol of Faith is trivial, a subject for
investigation
by professional theologians, and does not in any way influence our
faith.
As we remarked at the beginning, Christianity is the religion of the
Holy
Trinity. And faith in the Holy Trinity has a most immediate bearing on
all
aspects of our spiritual life. For Christians, the dogma of the Holy
Trinity is not only a doctrinal formula, but a living and
uninterruptedly
developing Christian experience. Every addition or change to the
teaching
on the Holy Trinity violates the correctness of this cornerstone dogma
and
changes our faith.
On what, then, do Roman Catholics base the Filioque their dogma on the
procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son?
Catholic theologians say that the Saviour's words themselves, "Who
proceedeth from the Father", do not at all exclude the procession of the
Holy Spirit also from the Son; on the contrary, they even contain this
thought in themselves, inasmuch as the Father and the Son are one in
essence, and all that the Father has, the Son also has. The Orthodox
Church
teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really are one in essence,
but
differ among themselves as Persons; all that the Father has, the Son
also
has and the Holy Spirit also has, with the exception of personal
attributes. But if we assume that the procession of the Holy Spirit also
from the Son is intended by the words "proceedeth from the Father",
because
the Son is one with the Father in essence, then we would have to allow
that
the begetting of the Son by the Spirit is also intended by the words
"begotten of the Father", since the Spirit also is one with the Father
in
essence. Moreover, we would have to allow that the Son, while being
begotten of the Father, is also begotten of Himself; and the Holy
Spirit,
while proceeding from the Father, also proceeds from Himself, since They
are one with the Father in essence and are, furthermore, all co-eternal.
Catholics cite the Saviour's words, "when he, the Spirit of truth is
come,
he will guide you into all truth; He shall glorify me: for he shall
receive
of mine, and shall shew it unto you" (John 16:1314). Catholics explain
the
expression, "shall receive of mine", thus: He shall receive of My
essence,
that is, shall proceed from Me. But in reality, this expression
signifies
only that the new Instructor the Spirit of truth will not preach any
new teaching, different from the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, but
will reveal, establish and help believers to assimilate the teaching
proclaimed by the Saviour.
Roman Catholics further cite the fact that the Apostle Paul calls the
HolySpirit "the Spirit of [God's] Son" (Galatians 4:6) and "the Spirit
of
Christ" (Romans 8:9), and from this they conclude that if the Holy
Spirit
is called the "Spirit of [the] Father" (Matthew 10:20), because he
proceeds
from Him, then, consequently, He is also called "the Spirit of the Son"
for
the same reason. But from the context it is obvious that the Apostle
Paul
is speaking not about the eternal Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but
about
His gracefilled gifts, which are sent down into the hearts of
believers;
and since all spiritual gifts are obtained for us by the endless merits
of
the Son of God, therefore the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of
the
Son.
Bishop Kallistos (Ware), a prominent English Orthodox theologian, well
acquainted with Western theology, writes: "Latin Scholastic theology,
emphasizing as it does the essence at the expense of the persons, comes
near to turning God into an abstract idea. He becomes a remote and
impersonal being, whose existence has to be proved by metaphysical
arguments a God of the philosophers, not the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and
Jacob. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has been far less concerned than
the
Latin west to find philosophical proofs of God's existence: what is
important is not that a man should argue about the deity, but that he
should have a direct and living encounter with a concrete and personal
God.
"Such are some of the reasons why Orthodox regard filioque as dangerous
and
heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper
balance
between unity and diversity in the Godhead. The oneness of the deity is
emphasized at the expense of His threeness; God is regarded too much in
terms of abstract essence and too little in terms of concrete
personality"
(The Orthodox Church, page 222).
In the Western Church consciousness, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to
the
Son of God. It is sufficient to leaf through Western theological texts
in
order to be convinced as to what an insignificant place Catholic
theologians allocate to the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world, in
the Church and in the life of individual men.
The Filioque places the Holy Spirit in a state of subordination to the
Father and the Son, and it distorted the teaching on the Church in the
West
(of this, we shall speak separately). Every false teaching about the
Holy
Spirit is a blow against the dogma about the Church. Because the place
of
the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and in God's plan concerning
man
was ignored in Western theological thought, the Church gradually began
to
be accepted as an earthly institution, organized and administered
according
to the principles of worldly authority and juridical law.
Protopriest V. Potapov
Parish Life
July, 1996
---------------------------------------------------------
© 1996 by
The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist
4001 17th St. Northwest, Washington, D.C.
20011-5302
(202) 726-3000
BugDaddy
padr...@aol.com wrote:
>What then of the Son?
He is the Son of the Father.
>Is He seperate from the Holy Spirit?
Yes.
>Did the
>Father beget first one and then the other?
No.
>Did Christ proceed from the
>father through the Holy Spirit?
No.
>These and similair questions where
>addressed in the Council so flippantly reject.
Where do you get such nonsense? Read the Creed!
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
William Overcamp
-----------------------------------
Slava Isusu Christu...
Slava vo viki!
padr...@aol.com
In article <32E44F...@spectra.net>, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
<agg...@spectra.net> writes:
>Of old, the Church, in her teaching on the interrelationships of the
>Persons of the Holy Trinity, has taught that the Third Person of the
>Holy
>Trinity, the Holy Spirit, pre-eternally proceeds only from the First
>Person
>of the Holy Trinity God the Father. This teaching was based on
>Christ's
>words, that the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26).
What then of the Son? Is He seperate from the Holy Spirit? Did the
Father beget first one and then the other? Did Christ proceed from the
father through the Holy Spirit? These and similair questions where
BugDaddy
"Alfred G. Green, Jr." <agg...@spectra.net> wrote:
><snip>
>Many presentday Christians consider that the dispute around the
>addition of one word to the Symbol of Faith is trivial, a subject for
>investigation by professional theologians, and does not in any
>way influence our faith.
>As we remarked at the beginning, Christianity is the religion of the
>Holy Trinity. And faith in the Holy Trinity has a most immediate
>bearing on all aspects of our spiritual life.
Very few people in the West understand the central role that the
Trinity has. They base their spiritual life on the Imitation of
Christ, whom they effectively isolate from the Trinity.
>For Christians, the dogma of the Holy Trinity is not only a doctrinal
>formula, but a living and uninterruptedly developing Christian
>experience.
So very true. Yet many people in the West do not see it that way.
>Every addition or change to the teaching on the Holy
>Trinity violates the correctness of this cornerstone dogma and changes
>our faith.
>On what, then, do Roman Catholics base the Filioque their dogma on
>the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son?
>
>Catholic theologians say that the Saviour's words themselves, "Who
>proceedeth from the Father", do not at all exclude the procession of
>the Holy Spirit also from the Son; on the contrary, they even contain
>this thought in themselves, inasmuch as the Father and the Son are
>one in essence, and all that the Father has, the Son also has.
That seems to be a bit of an oversimplification. Saint Thomas Aquinas
spent a good bit of effort developing his theory of the Divine
Relations, by which the God is related to God as distinct Persons.
>The Orthodox Church teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
>really are one in essence, but differ among themselves as Persons;
>all that the Father has, the Son also has and the Holy Spirit also has,
>with the exception of personal attributes. But if we assume that the
>procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son is intended by the
>words "proceedeth from the Father", because the Son is one with
>the Father in essence, then we would have to allow that the
>begetting of the Son by the Spirit is also intended by the words
>"begotten of the Father", since the Spirit also is one with the
>Father in essence. Moreover, we would have to allow that the Son,
>while being begotten of the Father, is also begotten of Himself;
>and the Holy Spirit, while proceeding from the Father, also
>proceeds from Himself, since They are one with the Father in
>essence and are, furthermore, all co-eternal.
As I said above, this is a bit of an oversimplification of the Western
position. Certainly, the procession of the Holy Spirit does not
belong to the essence. Saint Thomas Aquinas held that there are four
Divine Relations: Fatherhood, Sonship, Spiration and Procession. If
we put this into an Orthodox perspective, there would be six such
Relations. I do not know what to call them. How's this for a
starter: Fatherhood, Sonship, Source, Gift, Logos and Life?
>Catholics cite the Saviour's words, "when he, the Spirit of truth is
>come, he will guide you into all truth; He shall glorify me: for he shall
>receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you" (John 16:1314).
>Catholics explain the expression, "shall receive of mine", thus: He
>shall receive of My essence, that is, shall proceed from Me. But in
>reality, this expression signifies only that the new Instructor the
>Spirit of truth will not preach any new teaching, different from the
>teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, but will reveal, establish and
>help believers to assimilate the teaching proclaimed by the
>Saviour.
Again, this is a bit of a simplification of what the West teaches.
Jesus is the Logos. So all teaching comes from Him. The Holy Spirit
is the image of the Logos, just as the Logos is the image of the
Father.
>Roman Catholics further cite the fact that the Apostle Paul calls the
>HolySpirit "the Spirit of [God's] Son" (Galatians 4:6) and "the Spirit
>of Christ" (Romans 8:9), and from this they conclude that if the Holy
>Spirit is called the "Spirit of [the] Father" (Matthew 10:20), because
>he proceeds from Him, then, consequently, He is also called "the
>Spirit of the Son" for the same reason. But from the context it is
>obvious that the Apostle Paul is speaking not about the eternal
>Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but about His gracefilled gifts,
>which are sent down into the hearts of believers; and since all
>spiritual gifts are obtained for us by the endless merits of the Son
>of God, therefore the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son.
That is one possible explanation. Another, I think, better
explanation is to relealize that whatever belongs to the Father
belongs to the Son as well -- except, for Fatherhood. Now the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father and belongs to Him -- He is *of* the
Father, as well as being *from* the Father. It is reasonable to say
that He is *of* the Son, without being *from* Him.
>Bishop Kallistos (Ware), a prominent English Orthodox theologian, well
>acquainted with Western theology, writes: "Latin Scholastic theology,
>emphasizing as it does the essence at the expense of the persons,
>comes near to turning God into an abstract idea. He becomes a
>remote and impersonal being, whose existence has to be proved
>by metaphysical arguments a God of the philosophers, not the
>God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Clearly, Western theology has become highly philosophical. One look
at the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas shows that. The West needs to
reestablish theology on the Scriptures and the Fathers.
>Orthodoxy, on the other hand,
>has been far less concerned than the Latin west to find philosophical
>proofs of God's existence: what is important is not that a man should
>argue about the deity, but that he should have a direct and living
>encounter with a concrete and personal God.
>"Such are some of the reasons why Orthodox regard filioque as
>dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and
>destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the
>Godhead. The oneness of the deity is emphasized at the
>expense of His threeness; God is regarded too much in terms
>of abstract essence and too little in terms of concrete personality"
>(The Orthodox Church, page 222).
Calling the Filioque heresy seems to be a bit extreme. The ablative
case in Latin has many possible shades of meaning: "from," "of,"
"through," etc. This ambiguity is a large part of the problem. Latin
is a horrible language for theology. It's a good one for Canon Law.
Most Western theology is, in fact, based on Canon Law, rather than on
the Scriptures or Tradition. Greek is much better for theology.
>In the Western Church consciousness, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to
>the Son of God. It is sufficient to leaf through Western theological texts
>in order to be convinced as to what an insignificant place Catholic
>theologians allocate to the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world, in
>the Church and in the life of individual men.
Certainly true. As I said above, Western Christianity revolves around
the Incarnation, rather than the Trinity.
>The Filioque places the Holy Spirit in a state of subordination to the
>Father and the Son, and it distorted the teaching on the Church in the
>West (of this, we shall speak separately). Every false teaching
>about the Holy Spirit is a blow against the dogma about the Church.
>Because the place of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and in
>God's plan concerning man was ignored in Western theological
>thought, the Church gradually began to be accepted as an earthly
>institution, organized and administered according to the principles
>of worldly authority and juridical law.
True. All too often, the Church has been seen as a worldly authority.
It is far from clear to me, however, that it is due to the Filioque.
>Protopriest V. Potapov
>Parish Life
>July, 1996
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> © 1996 by
> The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist
> 4001 17th St. Northwest, Washington, D.C.
> 20011-5302
> (202) 726-3000
-----------------------------------
Joseph Davidchik
The Kallistos comparisons were published on this newsgroup in their entirity
previously and were not that impressive. Some of the things that he said
about the differences in Catholicism and Orthodoxy were not true.
I don't think that Catholics subordinate the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.
It is just that most of Christianity (including the Protestants)
emphasizes Jesus Christ because he is the Savior of the World. Without
him, we are not saved.
Without him, there would be no Christianity.
The truth is that the filoque was never that important in the split of the
Churches. It became a philosophical debating point later. The Catholic
Church could change their Nicene Creed wording and the Orthodox would
still want to make an issue about the Catholics changing it twice.
I see translations of documents frequently and notice that very seldom are
they completely literal and final.
Mike
Joseph Davidchik
Evan Kalenik
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
> The Kallistos comparisons were published on this newsgroup in their
> entirity previously and were not that impressive. Some of the things
> that he said about the differences in Catholicism and Orthodoxy were
> not true.
I have found his grace to be very careful in what he writes. I do not
think that he was wrong in anything that he wrote about the
differences. Some Roman Catholics do disagree with him, but in truth,
not because he is wrong but they do not know what they are supposed to
believe.
> I don't think that Catholics subordinate the Holy Spirit in the
> Trinity. It is just that most of Christianity (including the
> Protestants) emphasizes Jesus Christ because he is the Savior of
> the World. Without him, we are not saved.
Roman Catholics have an over emphasis on Christ. That error leads to
such nonsense as the pope being the vicar of Christ on Earth. The
Protestants, on the other hand have an over emphasis on the Holy Spirit,
which leads to their individual interpretation of Scripture being guided
by the Holy Spirit (which causes one to think that the Holy Spirit must
not be too sure since it seems to tell different folks different
things).
> The truth is that the filoque was never that important in the split
> of the Churches.
On that I agree. However, the change to the Creed and the new theology
that sprung up around that addition did more harm to the unity of the
Church than just the filioque clause in the Creed.
> It became a philosophical debating point later. The Catholic
> Church could change their Nicene Creed wording and the Orthodox would
> still want to make an issue about the Catholics changing it twice.
That is nonsense. We are quite hopefull that one day you will again
follow the Lutherans (as you did with the mass) and delete the filioque
clause from the Creed.
Evan
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
Evan Kalenik wrote:
>
> Joseph Davidchik wrote:
>
> > The Kallistos comparisons were published on this newsgroup in their
> > entirity previously and were not that impressive. Some of the things
> > that he said about the differences in Catholicism and Orthodoxy were
> > not true.
>
> I have found his grace to be very careful in what he writes. I do not
> think that he was wrong in anything that he wrote about the
> differences. Some Roman Catholics do disagree with him, but in truth,
> not because he is wrong but they do not know what they are supposed to
> believe.
>
> > Trinity. It is just that most of Christianity (including the
> > Protestants) emphasizes Jesus Christ because he is the Savior of
> > the World. Without him, we are not saved.
>
> Roman Catholics have an over emphasis on Christ. That error leads to
> such nonsense as the pope being the vicar of Christ on Earth. The
> Protestants, on the other hand have an over emphasis on the Holy Spirit,
> which leads to their individual interpretation of Scripture being guided
> by the Holy Spirit (which causes one to think that the Holy Spirit must
> not be too sure since it seems to tell different folks different
> things).
>
> > The truth is that the filoque was never that important in the split
> > of the Churches.
>
> On that I agree. However, the change to the Creed and the new theology
> that sprung up around that addition did more harm to the unity of the
> Church than just the filioque clause in the Creed.
>
> > It became a philosophical debating point later. The Catholic
> > Church could change their Nicene Creed wording and the Orthodox would
> > still want to make an issue about the Catholics changing it twice.
>
> That is nonsense. We are quite hopefull that one day you will again
> follow the Lutherans (as you did with the mass) and delete the filioque
> clause from the Creed.
>
> Evan
Anyone who does not believe that the filioque played a major role in the
schism of 1054 has their head in the sand. Papal claims to lordship over
the entire church aside, the filioque was at the top of the list when
the schism occured. There is hope, however, for the R.C.'s to correct
the filioque error. When the Ecumenical Patriarch last visited Rome, he
and Pope John Paul recited the Nicene Creed in its original form. And,
the Vatican has already given permission for the creed's use with the
filioque as an option in the very near future. The creed will appear in
missals with the filioque in parenthesis.
Al Green
Orthodoxy: Telling the Truth Since 33 A.D.
BugDaddy
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>That is nonsense. We are quite hopefull that one day you will again
>follow the Lutherans (as you did with the mass) and delete the filioque
>clause from the Creed.
I would agree, Evan, were it not for all the fundamentalist
Super-Catholics, who would rather die than admit that any truth exists
outside the West. So I think the only solution is for there to be two
theologies, Eastern and Western.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
William Overcamp
Evan Kalenik
Alfred G. Green, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone who does not believe that the filioque played a major role in
> the schism of 1054 has their head in the sand. Papal claims to
> lordship over the entire church aside, the filioque was at the top of
> the list when the schism occured.
Al, I do not think that the filioque was not a problem back then. In
fact you can go back to St. Photius who clearly made a case about the
filioque clause and the schism that his objections produced.
On this list I have seen folks talk about the filioque clause and sound
like arians or Sabellians or a whole host of other heretics. They do
not know what the Church was talking about when she wrote the Creed.
Yet they are Roman Catholics who think they know what their church
teaches.
What I was trying to say is that the filioque clause, while small in and
of itself, generated a whole host of errors in the Roman Catholic
Church. Supremacy, infallibility, etc., are all a result of the
filioque clause. That is not to say that once the filioque clause was
introduced that it did not distort the most basic tennant of the
Christian faith, the Trinity. And that error lead to a number of other
errors by Rome. You can easily note that most of the errors of Rome
have their roots in a misunderstanding of the Trinity or the reduction
of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
The filioque was being used in Rome while she was still in the Church.
We did trust the Pope who promised that he would try to get it removed,
and never did (so much for the current claims about the pope ruling over
the whole church, he didn't back then within his own patriarchate). But
much of the problems that happened in 1054 were the result of the
filioque, more so than just the filioque on its own.
> There is hope, however, for the R.C.'s to correct the filioque error.
> When the Ecumenical Patriarch last visited Rome, he and Pope John
> Paul recited the Nicene Creed in its original form. And,
> the Vatican has already given permission for the creed's use with the
> filioque as an option in the very near future. The creed will appear
> in missals with the filioque in parenthesis.
Which is why Bishop Kallistos was correct when he recently stated that
the issue is not as great as it was 20 years ago. Rome is slowly
starting to see the light and recognize the error in the filioque
clause. One can only hope that when it finally does go and the proper
role of the Holy Spirit restored that the rest of Rome's errors will go
away and she will then be able to rejoin the Church.
Evan
Joseph Davidchik
In article <32EC49...@spectra.net>, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
<agg...@spectra.net> wrote:
> Anyone who does not believe that the filioque played a major role in the
> schism of 1054 has their head in the sand. Papal claims to lordship over
> the entire church aside, the filioque was at the top of the list when
> the schism occured.
>
> Al Green
> Orthodoxy: Telling the Truth Since 33 A.D.
You are wrong. The filoque became a big issue after the schism not before it.
If "two words" would have resolved the schism, I am sure that Rome would
have changed it. In reality, the major cause was the split in the Roman
Empire and bad communications among the principals. All these big
philosophical differences developed over time... later.
Mike Davidchik
BugDaddy
"Alfred G. Green, Jr." <agg...@spectra.net> wrote:
>Anyone who does not believe that the filioque played a major role in the
>schism of 1054 has their head in the sand. Papal claims to lordship over
>the entire church aside, the filioque was at the top of the list when
>the schism occured. There is hope, however, for the R.C.'s to correct
>the filioque error. When the Ecumenical Patriarch last visited Rome, he
>and Pope John Paul recited the Nicene Creed in its original form. And,
>the Vatican has already given permission for the creed's use with the
>filioque as an option in the very near future. The creed will appear in
>missals with the filioque in parenthesis.
At the Council of Florence -- Yes, I know the Orthodox do not accept
it, but it is important in describing the Catholic position on that
subject -- the Western church agreed that the Filioque was not
universally required as part of the Creed of Constantinople -- so it
is not surprising that the Roman Patriarch would be willing to omit
it.
The Byzantine Catholic church I attend has, during the twelve years I
have been going there -- always printed the words "and from the Son"
in parenthesis, as you indicate. Perhaps the rest of the Church will
one day catch up with us.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
Joseph Davidchik
> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> >That is nonsense. We are quite hopefull that one day you will again
> >follow the Lutherans (as you did with the mass) and delete the filioque
> >clause from the Creed.
>
> I would agree, Evan, were it not for all the fundamentalist
> Super-Catholics, who would rather die than admit that any truth exists
> outside the West. So I think the only solution is for there to be two
> theologies, Eastern and Western.
I don't think it is necessary to make separate theologies based upon papal
infallibility, the filoque, purgatory, and Immaculate Conception.
As a Ruthenian Catholic, you believe in at least two of the four.
Mike Davidchik
Evan Kalenik
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
> You are wrong. The filoque became a big issue after the schism not
> before it.
I guess the writings of St. Photius, a couple of centuries before 1054
was over nothing?
> If "two words" would have resolved the schism, I am sure that Rome
> would have changed it.
That addition to the Creed was fought by all the Orthodox popes of Rome
until it was forced on them by the Franks. So Rome had no choice from
that point on.
> In reality, the major cause was the split in the Roman
> Empire and bad communications among the principals. All these big
> philosophical differences developed over time... later.
Which ignores the changes that the pope made to his office and attempts
to try to control the Church, issues that were obscured becasue of poor
communications, but rejected when known in the east.
Evan
Joseph Davidchik
In article <32f253b5...@news.cris.com>, BugD...@cris.com wrote:
> On the other hand, it would be best for the West just to drop the
> Filioque. I do not think that would be practical, because there are
> those in the West who would not accept such a change. Hence the need
> for two theologies.
I understand. But, the argument is still so confusing to the average person
that it is hard to make a big issue out of it.
I try to go to an Eastern Rite liturgy, but my wife doesn't want to travel
50 miles. I usally go to the Latin Rite. I see no problem in going to
either Rite, but I guess I have studied it more than the average Roman
Catholic. I know a little about the Eastern Orthodox and that's why they
don't "snow" me.
Mike Davidchik
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
[answering more than one at once, yes I know:]
>In tnn.religion.catholic, davi...@oro.net (Joseph Davidchik) wrote:
>
>>> I would agree, Evan, were it not for all the fundamentalist
>>> Super-Catholics, who would rather die than admit that any truth exists
>>> outside the West.
The Church you mean. The Church, of both east and west - universal.
That's what it means to say - universal. The Greek Fathers were of The
Church, and wanted nothing less than a unified Church under authority
of the Holy See. Their descendants changed that. But The Church
remains, even if some prefer an inverted and contrarian sense of
history and terminology.
>>I don't think it is necessary to make separate theologies based upon papal
>>infallibility, the filoque, purgatory, and Immaculate Conception.
>>
>>As a Ruthenian Catholic, you believe in at least two of the four.
As a Catholic, he or she must believe in it all.
>The Western church at the Council of Florence agreed that neither side
>needed to change the wording of the Creed. (Yes, I know the Greek
>church does not accept the Council of Florence.)
A shame. But what was written is that the filioque was, and is, fine
and comported with the Greek understanding at the time.
>On the other hand, it would be best for the West just to drop the
>Filioque.
A celibate clergy, as well, perhaps? I've read various of your
articles on this. The filioque, clearly, is a huge issue with you.
You've raised it in the past, on almost any pretext. Yet it is as the
Greek believe, perhaps just not how the Greek might word it for
clarity. This is how it was put at Florence, which you once thought
such an important council. But when you get to the point of opposing
the filioque, I wonder if the irony doesn't strike some. It might be
argued that some explanation needs to accompany simply the phrase,
from The Father and The Son. But to argue it read, from The Father,
alone, with nothing else, seems an argument at odds with Greek
tradition, which is inseparably The Church tradition, which teaches
now what it has since then, which is only what one would expect from
The Church truly Universal - and so, necessarily, true.
Peace.
BugDaddy
In tnn.religion.catholic, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson)
wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>> I would agree, Evan, were it not for all the fundamentalist
>>> Super-Catholics, who would rather die than admit that any truth exists
>>> outside the West.
>The Church you mean. The Church, of both east and west - universal.
>That's what it means to say - universal. The Greek Fathers were of The
>Church, and wanted nothing less than a unified Church under authority
>of the Holy See. Their descendants changed that. But The Church
>remains, even if some prefer an inverted and contrarian sense of
>history and terminology.
No I meant Super-Catholic.
>>>As a Ruthenian Catholic, you believe in at least two of the four.
>As a Catholic, he or she must believe in it all.
Once again, I would clarrify the point. I am a Roman Catholic who
attends a Ruthenian Catholic church.
>>The Western church at the Council of Florence agreed that neither side
>>needed to change the wording of the Creed. (Yes, I know the Greek
>>church does not accept the Council of Florence.)
>
>A shame. But what was written is that the filioque was, and is, fine
>and comported with the Greek understanding at the time.
It was what the emperor forced them to agree to.
>>On the other hand, it would be best for the West just to drop the
>>Filioque.
>A celibate clergy, as well, perhaps?
I would be very happy for the Western church to keep its celibate
clergy. It is a non-issue.
>I've read various of your
>articles on this. The filioque, clearly, is a huge issue with you.
>You've raised it in the past, on almost any pretext.
It is an important issue in regard to the Eastern churches.
>Yet it is as the
>Greek believe, perhaps just not how the Greek might word it for
>clarity.
Not so. You should let the Greeks speak for themselves.
>This is how it was put at Florence, which you once thought
>such an important council.
My beliefs in that regard have not changed.
>But when you get to the point of opposing
>the filioque,
I have never opposed the Filioque. As I told you before whenever I
attend the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V, I recite it. It is part of
the theology of the West. Furthermore, I have stated many times that
I think that it is necessary as a practical matter for there to be two
theologies, Eastern and Western.
>I wonder if the irony doesn't strike some. It might be
>argued that some explanation needs to accompany simply the phrase,
>from The Father and The Son. But to argue it read, from The Father,
>alone, with nothing else, seems an argument at odds with Greek
>tradition, which is inseparably The Church tradition, which teaches
>now what it has since then, which is only what one would expect from
>The Church truly Universal - and so, necessarily, true.
You are full of such hot air. I hope you feel better now.
The truth is, that the Filioque is not infallible and not universal.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
Bill Overcamp
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>In tnn.religion.catholic, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson)
>>That's what it means to say - universal. The Greek Fathers were of The
>>Church, and wanted nothing less than a unified Church under authority
>>of the Holy See. Their descendants changed that. But The Church
>>remains, even if some prefer an inverted and contrarian sense of
>>history and terminology.
>
>No I meant Super-Catholic.
You can mean what you say and not know what you mean. Which is just to
say, how are such Catholics 'super', if I might ask?
>>A shame. But what was written is that the filioque was, and is, fine
>>and comported with the Greek understanding at the time.
>
>It was what the emperor forced them to agree to.
Then all were agreed, but apparently are not, now. Maybe they really
_were_ right, way back when. Maybe the Greek are just wrong, today.
>>I've read various of your
>>articles on this. The filioque, clearly, is a huge issue with you.
>>You've raised it in the past, on almost any pretext.
>
>It is an important issue in regard to the Eastern churches.
I don't see why, if you are referring to the Eastern Catholic.
>>But when you get to the point of opposing
>>the filioque,
>
>I have never opposed the Filioque. As I told you before whenever I
>attend the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V, I recite it.
But you _do_ oppose it. You wish it weren't there. That's what it
means to oppose this clause, to wish it were not there.
>I think that it is necessary as a practical matter for there to be two
>theologies, Eastern and Western.
But then you admit one is The Church, one is not. A house divided
can't stand. And you insist you are not referring to the Greek
Orthodox in all this, but rather the Eastern Catholic. If both
theologies are complementary, then they combine into one, ultimately.
If they contradict, then one is not entirely of The Church, while the
other is. The eastern fathers had no problem with such. They wrote as
fathers, we say now, of The Church - undivided, as they wished and
demanded it always be. Their descendants found a better way to go, and
thought otherwise. The Eastern Catholic decided against such, and
cannot now embrace a theology other than that of The Church.
>>I wonder if the irony doesn't strike some. It might be
>>argued that some explanation needs to accompany simply the phrase,
>>from The Father and The Son. But to argue it read, from The Father,
>>alone, with nothing else, seems an argument at odds with Greek
>>tradition, which is inseparably The Church tradition, which teaches
>>now what it has since then, which is only what one would expect from
>>The Church truly Universal - and so, necessarily, true.
>
>You are full of such hot air. I hope you feel better now.
Well, clever retort, angry, &c. Duly noted. If you think that a
bombast, however, I wish you'd reread it, again.
>The truth is, that the Filioque is not infallible and not universal.
But The Holy Spirit _does_ proceed from both Father and Son. It's what
we Catholics believe. No doubt you think that the most controversial
statement ever. I don't know what to tell you.
Peace.
Mark Hartman
A bit of news, folks:
The reason that the Filioque is printed in parentheses in the books of the
Divine Liturgy has nothing at all to do with whether the Eastern Catholic
Churches do or do not use it (they DO use it).
It's because the Divine Liturgy, except for those words, is IDENTICAL to
those of the non-Uniate Eastern Churches, and the publishers simply aren't
going to do two versions just to add or eliminate three words.
(The source for this is the pastor of our local Byzantine Catholic Church.)
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@pdasolutions.com
==========================================================================
Work smarter. Work faster. Work better. Work easier. Macintosh.
Evan Kalenik
BugDaddy wrote:
> I would agree, Evan, were it not for all the fundamentalist
> Super-Catholics, who would rather die than admit that any truth exists
> outside the West. So I think the only solution is for there to be two
> theologies, Eastern and Western.
The problem is that we now have two theologies. The solution is one
theology. As there was before 1054. There could be western and eastern
rites within that but the theology must be the same. It would not be
true to say that this already exists in the Roman Catholic Church since
the Uniates and the Roman Catholics both have the same theology.
Evan
Evan Kalenik
Mark Johnson wrote:
> The Church you mean. The Church, of both east and west - universal.
> That's what it means to say - universal. The Greek Fathers were of The
> Church, and wanted nothing less than a unified Church under authority
> of the Holy See.
The Fathers wanted a unified Church. Period. They were just as
critical of the innovations that Rome made to try to pretend that the
bishop of Rome was over the Church. And they were critical everytime
the bishop of Rome did something to break the unity of the Church.
> Their descendants changed that. But The Church remains, even if some
> prefer an inverted and contrarian sense of history and terminology.
When Rome could not force her way on the Church she picked up her ball
and went home. The Church does remain. And hopefully one day Rome will
return to it.
> As a Catholic, he or she must believe in it all.
As a Roman Catholic you must. As a Catholic, I do not.
> A shame. But what was written is that the filioque was, and is, fine
> and comported with the Greek understanding at the time.
Except it didn't. Back then. And it doesn't today.
> The filioque, clearly, is a huge issue... Yet it is as the
> Greek believe, perhaps just not how the Greek might word it for
> clarity.
That is not what the Greeks or the Church believes.
> It might be argued that some explanation needs to accompany simply
> the phrase, from The Father and The Son. But to argue it read, from
> The Father, alone, with nothing else, seems an argument at odds with
> Greek tradition, which is inseparably The Church tradition, which
> teaches now what it has since then, which is only what one would
> expect from The Church truly Universal - and so, necessarily, true.
The addition of the filioque would require an explanation. That
explanation would say that while the Creed says the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father and the Son, that is not what the Creed originally said
nor does it agree with what the Fathers meant when they wrote the
Creed. From my point of view it would be much easier for the Roman
Catholics to take out the filioque clause, start to believe the same
procession of the Holy Spirit that the Church believed when it wrote the
Creed (and still believes today) and forget all the rest of the nonsense
that the Roman Catholic Church has added.
Evan
timot...@aol.com
In article <32F38B...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:
>
>The Fathers wanted a unified Church. Period. They were just as
>critical of the innovations that Rome made to try to pretend that the
>bishop of Rome was over the Church. And they were critical everytime
>the bishop of Rome did something to break the unity of the Church.
The fathers had a unified church. There remains today a unified church --
all the bishops of the world in full communion with the successor of Peter
constitute this unified church. History bears witness to this. When are
we going to see some of the writings or conciliar decrees to back up all
the nonsense you put out here? You never back up anything and have no
discernible evidence to support this allegation. All you have is Evan's
opinion -- the new dogma of Evanism.
You would have been censured by the eastern fathers and doctors that you
claim hold your position:
Eusebius of Caesarea
"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the
parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the
fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice
the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Passover. . . .
But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . .
as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has
prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no
other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods
and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one
consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree
that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on
no other but the Lord's day and that we should observe the close of the
paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided
over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the
community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed
with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the
brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the
bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of
neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor
that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the
tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf
of the peace of the churches--[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he
was a peace-maker both in name and character. And he corresponded by
letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of
churches" (ibid., 24:18).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the
Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17],
and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a
single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source
and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also
which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby
it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all
[the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all
the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to
this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he
[should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he
still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic
Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no
man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the
apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he
repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue
of him . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived,
a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright.
. . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer
against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough,
and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there--he that carries about the
keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the
apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name
of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called
Diospolis" [Acts 9:32-34] (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the
holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its
buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church
for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation,
will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching
flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to
all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have
chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as
the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys
of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures"
(Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
... and these only scratch the surface of the first 4 centuries of the
history of the Catholic Church.
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>No I meant Super-Catholic.
>You can mean what you say and not know what you mean. Which is just to
>say, how are such Catholics 'super', if I might ask?
A Super-Catholic is a fundamentalist who is more Catholic than the
pope.
>>It was what the emperor forced them to agree to.
>Then all were agreed, but apparently are not, now. Maybe they really
>_were_ right, way back when. Maybe the Greek are just wrong, today.
It's not clear that they really agreed. They did what they were
forced to do.
>>It is an important issue in regard to the Eastern churches.
>I don't see why, if you are referring to the Eastern Catholic.
It is important because people like you do not understand that it is
not infallible and is not universal.
>>I have never opposed the Filioque. As I told you before whenever I
>>attend the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V, I recite it.
>But you _do_ oppose it. You wish it weren't there. That's what it
>means to oppose this clause, to wish it were not there.
No, I recite the Filioque at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V. The
ablative case in Latin is beautifully ambiguous in meaning. I have no
problem with that ambiguity.
>But then you admit one is The Church, one is not. A house divided
>can't stand. And you insist you are not referring to the Greek
>Orthodox in all this, but rather the Eastern Catholic.
The Western Church agreed that the Eastern Catholic churches are not
required to use the Filioque.
>If both
>theologies are complementary, then they combine into one, ultimately.
Not necessarily. The Dominican and Jesuit orders have radically
different ideas about some theological questions.
>If they contradict, then one is not entirely of The Church, while the
>other is.
No, there is no need for agreement on non-infallible questions.
>The eastern fathers had no problem with such.
We went through this before. A long list of statements were claimed
to represent acceptance of the Filioque. Only one of them, however,
actually referred to the Filioque.
>They wrote as
>fathers, we say now, of The Church - undivided, as they wished and
>demanded it always be. Their descendants found a better way to go, and
>thought otherwise. The Eastern Catholic decided against such, and
>cannot now embrace a theology other than that of The Church.
There are many different theologies in the Church.
>>You are full of such hot air. I hope you feel better now.
>Well, clever retort, angry, &c. Duly noted. If you think that a
>bombast, however, I wish you'd reread it, again.
You are just full of hot air, making claims that do not make real
sense.
>But The Holy Spirit _does_ proceed from both Father and Son. It's what
>we Catholics believe. No doubt you think that the most controversial
>statement ever. I don't know what to tell you.
Certainly it is part of the theology of the West. That theology is
neither infallible nor universal.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
Bill Overcamp
BugDaddy
m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>A bit of news, folks:
>The reason that the Filioque is printed in parentheses in the books of the
>Divine Liturgy has nothing at all to do with whether the Eastern Catholic
>Churches do or do not use it (they DO use it).
Some *have* used it. In the future, it is likely that they will not
be using it. The Second Vatican Council urged the Eastern churches to
return to their historical roots. That process necessitates the
abandonment of the Filioque. That process in under way. A few years
ago, the Parma diocese of the Ruthenian Catholic Church officially
abandoned the Filioque. I expect that the other dioceses will follow
suit.
>It's because the Divine Liturgy, except for those words, is IDENTICAL to
>those of the non-Uniate Eastern Churches, and the publishers simply aren't
>going to do two versions just to add or eliminate three words.
It is more than that. It is a decision that the entire Church
approved at the Second Vatican Council.
>(The source for this is the pastor of our local Byzantine Catholic Church.)
It is natural that in talking to a Roman Catholic, that pastor would
not emphasize the trends I mentioned. Those trends, however, exist
and will become stronger in the future.
Mark Hartman
>m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
>>A bit of news, folks:
>
>>The reason that the Filioque is printed in parentheses in the books of the
>>Divine Liturgy has nothing at all to do with whether the Eastern Catholic
>>Churches do or do not use it (they DO use it).
>
>Some *have* used it. In the future, it is likely that they will not
>be using it. The Second Vatican Council urged the Eastern churches to
>return to their historical roots. That process necessitates the
>abandonment of the Filioque. That process in under way. A few years
>ago, the Parma diocese of the Ruthenian Catholic Church officially
>abandoned the Filioque. I expect that the other dioceses will follow
>suit.
>
>>It's because the Divine Liturgy, except for those words, is IDENTICAL to
>>those of the non-Uniate Eastern Churches, and the publishers simply aren't
>>going to do two versions just to add or eliminate three words.
>
>It is more than that. It is a decision that the entire Church
>approved at the Second Vatican Council.
>
>>(The source for this is the pastor of our local Byzantine Catholic Church.)
>
>It is natural that in talking to a Roman Catholic, that pastor would
>not emphasize the trends I mentioned. Those trends, however, exist
>and will become stronger in the future.
Well, Bill, you have to make a decision here. If Vatican II encouraged
what you're first calling "Eastern" churches to return to their historical
roots, and because of that an Eastern Catholic diocese abandoned the Filioque,
then are the Eastern Catholic churches "Eastern" or "Roman"? After all, in
the same message, you refer to another Eastern Catholic church as "Roman"
Catholic, which I notice you tend to use as a pejorative when it comes to
the Uniate Churches.
It really seems that you deign to grant "Eastern" status to those who agree
with you, but condemn as "Roman" those who don't.
IMO, another example of the confused state of mind one reaches when trying
to make facts fit what you want the situation to be, rather than accepting
the truth and going on from there.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@pdasolutions.com
============================================================================
3 kinds of computers exist: large/hard to use; small/hard to use; Macintosh.
BugDaddy
In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark
Hartman) wrote:
>In article <32f9a1db...@news.cris.com>, BugD...@cris.com wrote:
>>It is natural that in talking to a Roman Catholic, that pastor would
>>not emphasize the trends I mentioned. Those trends, however, exist
>>and will become stronger in the future.
>Well, Bill, you have to make a decision here. If Vatican II encouraged
>what you're first calling "Eastern" churches to return to their historical
>roots, and because of that an Eastern Catholic diocese abandoned the Filioque,
>then are the Eastern Catholic churches "Eastern" or "Roman"?
The Filioque is not infallible and is not universal. As such there is
no reason for *any* Catholic to assent to it. I respect it as the
theology of the West. When attending the Liturgy of Saint Pius V, I
recite it without any problem.
>After all, in
>the same message, you refer to another Eastern Catholic church as "Roman"
>Catholic, which I notice you tend to use as a pejorative when it comes to
>the Uniate Churches.
If you are an Eastern Catholic, I would apologize to you for referring
to you as "Roman."
>It really seems that you deign to grant "Eastern" status to those who agree
>with you, but condemn as "Roman" those who don't.
I condemn no one. Condemnation is what I wish to avoid. But, tell
me, why would you think the word "Roman" might be pejorative? Who
are you condemning? I happen to be a Roman Catholic who attends a
Ruthenian Catholic church. Do you condemn me as a Roman Catholic?
>IMO, another example of the confused state of mind one reaches when trying
>to make facts fit what you want the situation to be, rather than accepting
>the truth and going on from there.
As I say, if I improperly called you Roman, I acknowledge my confusion
and apologize.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
Evan Kalenik
timot...@aol.com wrote:
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net writes:
> >
> >The Fathers wanted a unified Church. Period. They were just as
> >critical of the innovations that Rome made to try to pretend that the
> >bishop of Rome was over the Church. And they were critical everytime
> >the bishop of Rome did something to break the unity of the Church.
> The fathers had a unified church. There remains today a unified
> church --
> all the bishops of the world in full communion with the successor of
> Peter constitute this unified church. History bears witness to this.
Since all bishops are the successor of Peter, as was the belief of the
early Church, the Church does exist today. Then of course you have the
Roman Catholic Church which maintains the shell of the Church but is
just that, a shell.
> When are we going to see some of the writings or conciliar decrees
> to back up all the nonsense you put out here? You never back up
> anything and have no discernible evidence to support this allegation.
> All you have is Evan's opinion -- the new dogma of Evanism.
Well, let's look at what you have provided:
> Eusebius of Caesarea
> "A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190].
> For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held
> that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded
> to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the
> Savior's Passover. . . .
<stuff deleted>
> Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome,...
Presided over the church AT Rome. Not over THE CHURCH, but the Church
_at_ Rome.
Let's continue...
> [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off
> whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient
> custom" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
Which is one example of what I was saying. Today there is no one who
could "admonish" the current pope. If they did they would be considered
as being insubordinate (which they would under Rome's new structure).
What should be remembered is that any and all of the Ancient Patriarchs
added or removed various patriarchs and popes from the list of fellow
bishops that were specifically mentioned during the liturgy if there was
some dispute amongst them.
But here from Eusebius, where you claimed, as only Roman Catholics are
capable of, one thing, but within the text and not taken out of context
is the exact oposite of what you were trying to prove. Is that just a
Timmyism? I am afraid not. It is consistant with the practice of the
Roman Catholic Church.
But let's go on:
> "Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on
> behalf of the peace of the churches--[Irenaeus being] a man
> well-named, for he was a peace-maker both in name and character.
> And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with
> very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).
Now what does "very many and various rulers of churches" mean? If
today's Roman Catholic model existed back then, that would have made no
sense at all. Irenaues was not an ambasador of the pope, going about
trying to settle things. He acted as a mediator, trying to get all the
equal parties, the pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, to come to some
kind of agreement. No one could force their opinion on anyone. How
different that is from the way the Roman Catholic Church operates
today. How very much the same does the Church operate today. But Rome
abandoned the practice of the Church to make one man the dictator of the
Roman Catholic Church.
> Cyprian of Carthage
> "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are
> Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' . . .
Yes, we have been through this before. And there are two texts, which
one is first is certainly not certain. One priest, Augustine on this
list said one version did and another Roman Catholic priest told me the
other one was first.
But square the words of St. Cyprian when he wrote: "...for none of us
sets himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren to
obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty
and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he
judge another." Now when St. Cyprian was talking about Pope Stephen
when he said this, how can you possible distort his other writings to
make them sound 180 degrees from what he said here. And if you look at
what he wrote to pope Stephen, this is what he said on a consistant
basis.
But you would prefer the creative translation given to St. Cyprian's
words by those who would profit by that new translation, the bishop of
Rome. That it might not be true, is of course, besides the point.
> Cyril of Jerusalem
> "The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish.
> Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and
> foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a
> little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly"
> (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
So what? St. Peter (as was St. Paul) formost amongst the apostles.
That is the teaching of the Church.
> Cyril of Jerusalem
Every Icon of St. Peter has him with the keys. So what.
> Ephraim the Syrian
While St. Paul may have some problems with what he wrote, so what?
> ... and these only scratch the surface of the first 4 centuries of the
> history of the Catholic Church.
I was there, I know what they mean.
What was not there was the false idea that the bishop of Rome alone was
the inheritor of St. Peter.
Evan
timot...@aol.com
In article <32F49E...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:
>
>Now what does "very many and various rulers of churches" mean? If
>today's Roman Catholic model existed back then, that would have made no
>sense at all. Irenaues was not an ambasador of the pope, going about
>trying to settle things. He acted as a mediator, trying to get all the
>equal parties, the pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, to come to some
>kind of agreement. No one could force their opinion on anyone. How
>different that is from the way the Roman Catholic Church operates
>today. How very much the same does the Church operate today. But Rome
>abandoned the practice of the Church to make one man the dictator of the
>Roman Catholic Church.
It's no different today than it was then:
CCC: The governing office
894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular
Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example,
but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which
indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service
which is that of their Master.[426]
895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is
proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately
controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."[427] But the bishops
should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate
authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary
confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be
exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the
Pope.
896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's
pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can
have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not
refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very
own children.... The faithful ... should be closely attached to the bishop
as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the
Father":[428]
Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the
college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God's
law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the
bishop.[429]
426 LG 27; cf. Lk 22:26-27.
427 LG 27.
428 LG 27 # 2.
429 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8, 1: Apostolic Fathers, II/2, 309.
... We could show you a circle and you would insist that it was a
trapezoid just because it was a Catholic who told you it was a circle.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>
>A Super-Catholic is a fundamentalist who is more Catholic than the
>pope.
But I do not think that I hold a higher office than the Pope, nor do I
think myself particularly holy compared with His Holiness, or
otherwise. Both His Holiness and myself are guided by The Magisterium
of The Church. So I have to ask again, just what is this 'super'
Catholic that you insist I must be? I think, to be honest, that you
just like throwing around epithets, that you just get off on calling
people names (if you want my opinion, here). You really _have_ run out
of arguments on various other fronts.
>It is important because people like you do not understand that it is
>not infallible and is not universal.
But it _is_ part of Church teaching that The Holy Spirit proceeds from
both Father and Son. It's in the Creed, after all. If this seems like
circular reasoning to you, so be it. But some things are foundational
by design.
>>But you _do_ oppose it. You wish it weren't there. That's what it
>>means to oppose this clause, to wish it were not there.
>
>No, I recite the Filioque at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V.
You 'recite', but don't affirm or confess it? You wish it were not in
The Creed, do you not? Simple question.
>>But then you admit one is The Church, one is not. A house divided
>>can't stand. And you insist you are not referring to the Greek
>>Orthodox in all this, but rather the Eastern Catholic.
>
>The Western Church agreed that the Eastern Catholic churches are not
>required to use the Filioque.
If you mean the Eastern Catholic, they do. If you mean the Greek
Orthodox, presently in schism, The Church is not obeyed by them.
>>If both
>>theologies are complementary, then they combine into one, ultimately.
>
>Not necessarily. The Dominican and Jesuit orders have radically
>different ideas about some theological questions.
For example?
>>The eastern fathers had no problem with such.
>
>We went through this before. A long list of statements were claimed
>to represent acceptance of the Filioque. Only one of them, however,
>actually referred to the Filioque.
As you saw it, let's remember. We _have_ been over this, all of this,
often. You never tire of asserting what you do in defense, I would
think at this point, of the Greek Orthodox. I will never tire of
asserting what The Church teaches, and has taught, and will continue
to teach.
>There are many different theologies in the Church.
Are you referring to the Eastern Catholic, now?
>You are just full of hot air, making claims that do not make real
>sense.
Suit yourself.
>>But The Holy Spirit _does_ proceed from both Father and Son. It's what
>>we Catholics believe. No doubt you think that the most controversial
>>statement ever. I don't know what to tell you.
>
>Certainly it is part of the theology of the West.
It's true, as the Greek once understood as described by documents from
Florence, which council you once thought so important.
Peace.
Evan Kalenik
timot...@aol.com wrote:
EK>Now what does "very many and various rulers of churches" mean?
> It's no different today than it was then:
>
> CCC: The governing office
>
> 894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the
> particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels,...
<stuff deleted>
> ... We could show you a circle and you would insist that it was a
> trapezoid just because it was a Catholic who told you it was a circle.
Not at all.
Nor does your quote provide the answer to my question. The "very many
and various rulers of the Church" is a far cry from the structure that
the Roman Catholic Church now has. The selection process is now
different. The need to be "in-communion" with each other rather than
being in communion with the bishop of Rome is a different mind set.
The Roman Catholic Church, organizationally, is a parody of the way the
Church was and is structured. While you may try to make the bishop of
Rome into some kind of benevelont dictator, he remains a dictator over
those who come under him. That is not the way of the Church.
Evan
timot...@aol.com
In article <32F72C...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:
>
>The Roman Catholic Church, organizationally, is a parody of the way the
>Church was and is structured.
I'm glad were fortunate enough to have someone like you - who actually
knows more than Christ - teach us about how our church should be built.
Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven.”
>While you may try to make the bishop of
>Rome into some kind of benevelont dictator, he remains a dictator over
>those who come under him. That is not the way of the Church.
You continue to remain ignorant about the authority of the pope and his
role in governing the church. The structure of the Catholic Church is the
same today as it was in the time of the apostles:
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are
fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus
himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined
together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;
CCC: The episcopal college and its head, the Pope
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form
of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter,
chosen from among them."[398] Just as "by the Lord's institution, St.
Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college,
so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops,
the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one
another."[399]
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his
Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of
the whole flock.[400] "The office of binding and loosing which was given
to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its
head."[401] This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs
to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the
primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and
visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the
whole company of the faithful."[402] "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of
his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has
full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he
can always exercise unhindered."[403]
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with
the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college
has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power
cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."[404]
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a
solemn manner in an ecumenical council."[405] But "there never is an
ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such
by Peter's successor."[406]
885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the
expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of
the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one
head."[407]
886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity
in their own particular Churches."[408] As such, they "exercise their
pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to
them,"[409] assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the
episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the
Churches.[410] The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their
own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to
the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view,
is a corporate body of Churches."[411] They extend it especially to the
poor,[412] to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries
who are working throughout the world.
887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form
ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or
regions.[413] The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or
provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the
present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to
the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."[414]
398 LG 19; cf. Lk 6:13; Jn 21:15-17.
399 LG 22; cf. CIC, can. 330.
400 Cf. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17.
401 LG 22 # 2.
402 LG 23.403 LG 22; cf. CD 2,9.
404 LG 22; cf. CIC, can 336.
405 CIC, can. 337 # 1.
406 LG 22.
407 LG 22.
408 LG 23.
409 LG 23.
410 Cf. CD 3.
411 LG 23.
412 Cf. Gal 2:10.
413 Cf. Apostolic Constitutions 34.
414 LG 23 # 3.
Mark Hartman
I have researched BugDaddy Bill's claim that the Pope said that the Filoque
was "not essential," and have found no evidence that the Pope has made such
a statement.
In fact, the mutual excommunications between the Pope and the Patriarch of
Constantinople which were only rescinded during the Pontificate of Paul VI
seem to fly in the face of Bill's contention that the Western Church ever
took a soft stance on the Filioque, and that the Eastern Schism "never
happened," even from the point of view of the Eastern Churches. After all,
excommunication is a rather definitive action, and not something that one
associates with "just drifting apart."
Bill, I publicly invite you to provide a specific reference for the statement
that you claim the Pope made. You're asserting something here that seems to
go against a longstanding Church teaching that I'm sure would have made news
in the periodicals that I follow.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@pdasolutions.com
==========================================================================
Macintosh: Where do you want to be tomorrow? And next year?
Thomas Henry Whalen
It is _not_ a dogma of the Orthodox Church that the Holy Spirit porceeds
from the Father alone, in isolation from the Son and from the relation
between the Father and the Son. Some Orthodox may believe this as
personal opinion, either from a spirit of division against Catholicism o
for better reasons, but it is not dogma.
It is _not_ a dogma of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son in exactly the same way He proceeds from the Father. While
all three Persons are coeternal and equal in power, glory, and majesty,
the Father is nevertheless the ultimate source of all being.
I have seen an interesting argument that the _Latin_ word filioque was
necesary to resolve an ambiguity in the Latin translation of the Greek
Creed -- an ambiguity of translation that had fueled heresies in Spain and
elsewhere. According to this argument, the meaning of the Greek original
is clear without adding a corresponding phrase. If this view were
accepted, it would make perfect sense for those Churches whose original
liturgical documents were in Greek to follow the Greek original while
the Latin Chruch continued to follow the amended latin translation with
the filioque.
--
Tom Whalen wha...@gsu.edu (404)651-4080 fax (404)651-3498
Professor of Decision Science
The Georgia State University "First things first, but not
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 USA necessarily in that order" - Dr. Who
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>A Super-Catholic is a fundamentalist who is more Catholic than the
>>pope.
>But I do not think that I hold a higher office than the Pope, nor do I
>think myself particularly holy compared with His Holiness, or
>otherwise. Both His Holiness and myself are guided by The Magisterium
>of The Church. So I have to ask again, just what is this 'super'
>Catholic that you insist I must be? I think, to be honest, that you
>just like throwing around epithets, that you just get off on calling
>people names (if you want my opinion, here). You really _have_ run out
>of arguments on various other fronts.
You ran out of arguments when you started asking how other people
would judge us.
>>It is important because people like you do not understand that it is
>>not infallible and is not universal.
>But it _is_ part of Church teaching that The Holy Spirit proceeds from
>both Father and Son. It's in the Creed, after all. If this seems like
>circular reasoning to you, so be it. But some things are foundational
>by design.
Yes, it is part of the theology of the West. It is in the Western
form of the Creed, but not in the original form or in the form which
the Western church agreed should be used in the East.
>>No, I recite the Filioque at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V.
>You 'recite', but don't affirm or confess it? You wish it were not in
>The Creed, do you not? Simple question.
Do you think I am falsely confessing it? I do not understand why you
would accuse me of such.
You need to understand that Latin is a horrible language to use for
matters of theology. It simply lacks the precision which such matters
require. It is good for Canon Law. Greek is much better for
theology.
In any event, in Latin the Filioque is fairly ambiguous. I have no
objection to professing ambiguity.
>>The Western Church agreed that the Eastern Catholic churches are not
>>required to use the Filioque.
>If you mean the Eastern Catholic, they do. If you mean the Greek
>Orthodox, presently in schism, The Church is not obeyed by them.
Some Eastern Catholic churches do use it. That is a shame and they
ought to return to their Eastern roots as the Second Vatican Council
ordered.
>>Not necessarily. The Dominican and Jesuit orders have radically
>>different ideas about some theological questions.
>For example?
Like I said, the disputes between the Dominicans and the Jesuits.
>As you saw it, let's remember. We _have_ been over this, all of this,
>often. You never tire of asserting what you do in defense, I would
>think at this point, of the Greek Orthodox. I will never tire of
>asserting what The Church teaches, and has taught, and will continue
>to teach.
I see you have no argument.
>>There are many different theologies in the Church.
>Are you referring to the Eastern Catholic, now?
I am referring to the Church.
>Suit yourself.
Fine.
>>>But The Holy Spirit _does_ proceed from both Father and Son. It's what
>>>we Catholics believe. No doubt you think that the most controversial
>>>statement ever. I don't know what to tell you.
I think it is part of the theology of the West.
>>Certainly it is part of the theology of the West.
>It's true, as the Greek once understood as described by documents from
>Florence, which council you once thought so important.
The Greeks were not free to choose at the Council of Florence. The
Emperor did not give them that freedom. The Council of Florence was
important. It shows us that the Western church agreed that the
Filioque is not universal.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
Bill Overcamp
BugDaddy
m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>I have researched BugDaddy Bill's claim that the Pope said that the Filoque
>was "not essential," and have found no evidence that the Pope has made such
>a statement.
I do not believe I said anything about "not essential." That does not
seem to be the sort of wording I have used. What I have said is that
it is not infallible and is not universal. The Western church agreed
at the Council of Florence that the Orthodox did not need to add it to
the Creed. In fact, they agreed to that it is acceptable to say that
the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son," a phrase that the Orthodox
also accepted at that time. (Since the Orthodox later stated that the
Council was not valid because they were forced into an agreement by
the Emperor one should not make too much out of their agreement.)
I have read the latest instructions from Rome regarding the Eastern
liturgies. They clearly say that the Eastern Catholic churches should
adopt the liturgies used by the Orthodox. I did not see any exception
regarding the Filioque.
I know that the bishop of Parma had ordered the removal of the
Filioque in his diocese. He is now bishop of Passaic and I expect
that he will sooner or later do the same thing for us. I'm hoping to
see him this Spring and intend to ask him about the question.
>In fact, the mutual excommunications between the Pope and the Patriarch of
>Constantinople which were only rescinded during the Pontificate of Paul VI
>seem to fly in the face of Bill's contention that the Western Church ever
>took a soft stance on the Filioque, and that the Eastern Schism "never
>happened," even from the point of view of the Eastern Churches. After all,
>excommunication is a rather definitive action, and not something that one
>associates with "just drifting apart."
I believe that the excommunication referred to was that of the
Patriarch Michael. It was issued by the papal legate, Humbert. It
was a personal excommunication and did not effect anyone other than
that one individual. It was not an interdict of the Greek church and
so does not imply that the schism began at that time. Furthermore,
most Canon Law experts have said that the excommunication was not
valid anyway, since they say Humbert did not have the authority to
impose it and it was never imposed by the Patriarch of Rome. The
simple truth is that the Greek church was in hierarchical communion
with Rome at least until the Turks conquered Constantinople. After
that time, the Greek church was not free to communicate with Rome.
That reflects the interference of the Turks and not a direct decision
from the Greek church. It is very much like the situation that
existed under the former Soviet Union.
>Bill, I publicly invite you to provide a specific reference for the statement
>that you claim the Pope made. You're asserting something here that seems to
>go against a longstanding Church teaching that I'm sure would have made news
>in the periodicals that I follow.
Yes, yes, it will be difficult now, but perhaps I can find some
reference to it.
Mark Hartman
>m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
>>I have researched BugDaddy Bill's claim that the Pope said that the Filoque
>>was "not essential," and have found no evidence that the Pope has made such
>>a statement.
>
>I do not believe I said anything about "not essential." That does not
>seem to be the sort of wording I have used. What I have said is that
>it is not infallible and is not universal.
A quibble, Bill. The Church has also said that "from the Father and the
Son" and "from the Father through the Son" mean, theologically, the same
thing, although the latter may be more precise.
>The Western church agreed
>at the Council of Florence that the Orthodox did not need to add it to
>the Creed.
...in order for the Orthodox Divine Liturgy to be valid.
>In fact, they agreed to that it is acceptable to say that
>the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son," a phrase that the Orthodox
>also accepted at that time.
...and never added to their version of the Creed.
>(Since the Orthodox later stated that the
>Council was not valid because they were forced into an agreement by
>the Emperor one should not make too much out of their agreement.)
A handy excuse.
>>In fact, the mutual excommunications between the Pope and the Patriarch of
>>Constantinople which were only rescinded during the Pontificate of Paul VI
>>seem to fly in the face of Bill's contention that the Western Church ever
>>took a soft stance on the Filioque, and that the Eastern Schism "never
>>happened," even from the point of view of the Eastern Churches. After all,
>>excommunication is a rather definitive action, and not something that one
>>associates with "just drifting apart."
>
>I believe that the excommunication referred to was that of the
>Patriarch Michael.
Wrong. There was a standing excommunication for the holders of the offices,
each regarded as "in public heresy and denial of the true Faith" by the other.
>
>>Bill, I publicly invite you to provide a specific reference for the statement
>>that you claim the Pope made. You're asserting something here that seems to
>>go against a longstanding Church teaching that I'm sure would have made news
>>in the periodicals that I follow.
>
>Yes, yes, it will be difficult now, but perhaps I can find some
>reference to it.
I really would appreciate it. I _have_ looked, and have found nothing; your
point concerning the bishop of Parma is very telling, and indicates that I
must have missed _something_ that you saw. Thanks.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@pdasolutions.com
============================================================================
You can take away my Mac when you pry the mouse out of my cold, dead fingers
BugDaddy
m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <32fc8617...@news.cris.com>, BugD...@cris.com wrote:
>>I do not believe I said anything about "not essential." That does not
>>seem to be the sort of wording I have used. What I have said is that
>>it is not infallible and is not universal.
>A quibble, Bill. The Church has also said that "from the Father and the
>Son" and "from the Father through the Son" mean, theologically, the same
>thing, although the latter may be more precise.
If it is a quibble, why doesn't the Western church use the latter form
in the Creed?
>>The Western church agreed
>>at the Council of Florence that the Orthodox did not need to add it to
>>the Creed.
>...in order for the Orthodox Divine Liturgy to be valid.
The Filioque has nothing to do with the validity of the Liturgy.
>>In fact, they agreed to that it is acceptable to say that
>>the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son," a phrase that the Orthodox
>>also accepted at that time.
>...and never added to their version of the Creed.
The Western church agreed at the Council of Florence that there was no
need to change the Creed.
>>(Since the Orthodox later stated that the
>>Council was not valid because they were forced into an agreement by
>>the Emperor one should not make too much out of their agreement.)
>A handy excuse.
It is more than that. Unquestionably, the Western church knew that
the Emporer had his hands in the pie.
>>I believe that the excommunication referred to was that of the
>>Patriarch Michael.
>Wrong. There was a standing excommunication for the holders of the offices,
>each regarded as "in public heresy and denial of the true Faith" by the other.
I don't know about that. I do know that Canon Law scholars have said
that Humbert did not have the authority to issue it.
>>Yes, yes, it will be difficult now, but perhaps I can find some
>>reference to it.
>I really would appreciate it. I _have_ looked, and have found nothing; your
>point concerning the bishop of Parma is very telling, and indicates that I
>must have missed _something_ that you saw. Thanks.
I will try to ask Father Scott, the pastor at Epiphany.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>people names (if you want my opinion, here). You really _have_ run out
>>of arguments on various other fronts.
>
>You ran out of arguments when you started asking how other people
>would judge us.
I don't appreciate your epithets. I don't like your calling people
names simply because they disagree with you. My suggestion was to let
other people judge, apart from you and me. How you find that
comparable to your behavior on these topics, I'm sure you would have
difficulty explaining.
>>But it _is_ part of Church teaching that The Holy Spirit proceeds from
>>both Father and Son. It's in the Creed, after all. If this seems like
>>circular reasoning to you, so be it. But some things are foundational
>>by design.
>
>Yes, it is part of the theology of the West. It is in the Western
>form of the Creed, but not in the original form
It was the original meaning, if not phrased that way. Both Greek and
Catholic agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. The
debate, as such, over the filioque is not what it means, but what it
would mean were "The Son" dropped from The Creed at that point,
entirely. The Church should not, and I doubt will, ever do this. You
seem to think the Greek correct; even that the Eastern Catholic
should.
>>You 'recite', but don't affirm or confess it? You wish it were not in
>>The Creed, do you not? Simple question.
>
>Do you think I am falsely confessing it? I do not understand why you
>would accuse me of such.
Because it's precisely the sense you've given over the last months.
Nevertheless - if you insist you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from both Father and Son, and that you confess such before God, then
that should be that. I suspect, however, your sense of this to others,
or to me, in the future, will betray you. That is, your opinion on
this really hasn't changed.
>You need to understand that Latin is a horrible language to use for
>matters of theology. It simply lacks the precision
Then so is English. Then so is French. Then so is German. There is not
a language far better than any other that would render, say, Latin, a
"horrible language to use".
>In any event, in Latin the Filioque is fairly ambiguous. I have no
>objection to professing ambiguity.
If you confess the sense agreed to at Florence, then I can't see how
it would be a problem. To the extent you wish to remove the very
filioque you confess from The Creed that all Catholics confess, then I
see a problem.
>Some Eastern Catholic churches do use it. That is a shame and they
>ought to return to their Eastern roots as the Second Vatican Council
>ordered.
Are you referring to the filioque clause by your word, "shame"?
>>As you saw it, let's remember. We _have_ been over this, all of this,
>>often. You never tire of asserting what you do in defense, I would
>>think at this point, of the Greek Orthodox. I will never tire of
>>asserting what The Church teaches, and has taught, and will continue
>>to teach.
>
>I see you have no argument.
It shouldn't be, at any rate, not with someone who claims to be
Catholic.
>>>There are many different theologies in the Church.
>
>>Are you referring to the Eastern Catholic, now?
>
>I am referring to the Church.
Then which various theologies can you mean? Perhaps you understand the
term in a way I simply don't.
>>It's true, as the Greek once understood as described by documents from
>>Florence, which council you once thought so important.
>
>The Greeks were not free to choose at the Council of Florence.
Which means you think the council a fraud, a fake, of no concern to
the Greek Orthodox you seem to defend in all this against The Church?
I really don't see the filioque as such the problem the Greek seem to
imagine. And I don't really see that they need insist upon the married
priesthood, save for particular isolated orders or purposes. In short,
it wasn't The Church that split from the Greek, but rather the other
way 'round. And it all seems so pointless for them to remain apart,
save for their opposition to the 'spirit of Vatican II', 'new order',
'new' catecheses, and the like (which reluctance I _can_ understand).
Peace.
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>You ran out of arguments when you started asking how other people
>>would judge us.
>I don't appreciate your epithets. I don't like your calling people
>names simply because they disagree with you. My suggestion was to let
>other people judge, apart from you and me. How you find that
>comparable to your behavior on these topics, I'm sure you would have
>difficulty explaining.
What epithet? I simply said that you had run out of arguments when
you started asking how other people would judge us. There is no
epithet there.
>>Yes, it is part of the theology of the West. It is in the Western
>>form of the Creed, but not in the original form
>It was the original meaning, if not phrased that way.
If it was the original meaning, then there is no point to the
addition. So it would be best to leave it out.
>Both Greek and Catholic agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
>Father and Son.
You know that's not true.
>The debate, as such, over the filioque is not what it means, but what
>it would mean were "The Son" dropped from The Creed at that point,
>entirely. The Church should not, and I doubt will, ever do this. You
>seem to think the Greek correct; even that the Eastern Catholic
>should.
I think that the Filioque is part of the theology of the West. Isn't
that clear?
>>Do you think I am falsely confessing it? I do not understand why you
>>would accuse me of such.
>Because it's precisely the sense you've given over the last months.
Not at all. I have indicated that I recite the Filioque many times.
>Nevertheless - if you insist you believe that the Holy Spirit
>proceeds from both Father and Son, and that you confess such before
>God, then that should be that.
I am not sure that belief has anything to do with it. I respect the
theology of the West, just as I respect the theology of the East.
>I suspect, however, your sense of this to others, or to me, in the
>future, will betray you. That is, your opinion on this really hasn't
>changed.
I believe that I have been very consistent in what I have said.
>>You need to understand that Latin is a horrible language to use for
>>matters of theology. It simply lacks the precision
>Then so is English. Then so is French. Then so is German. There is
>not a language far better than any other that would render, say,
>Latin, a "horrible language to use".
Not true at all. Greek is much better. Classical Latin, from what I
recall, only had about 50,000 words in the entire language. Latin was
particularly poor at expressing abstract thought -- such as the
question of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Often to express an
abstract term it was necessary to use concrete terms metaphorically.
I understand that Scholastic Latin improved the situation a bit. But
Scholastic theology bears the burden of its poor linguistic
background. I would particularly object to Saint Thomas Aquinas' idea
of the Divine relations, which was severely flawed.
>If you confess the sense agreed to at Florence, then I can't see how
>it would be a problem. To the extent you wish to remove the very
>filioque you confess from The Creed that all Catholics confess, then I
>see a problem.
All Catholics do not confess the same wording of the Creed. I know
that the Second Vatican Council ordered the Eastern churches to return
to their roots. That would imply that the Filioque be dropped. In
line with that the Eparchy of Parma did just that about three years
ago.
>>Some Eastern Catholic churches do use it. That is a shame and they
>>ought to return to their Eastern roots as the Second Vatican Council
>>ordered.
>Are you referring to the filioque clause by your word, "shame"?
I am referring to the Latinization of the Eastern liturgies.
>>I see you have no argument.
>It shouldn't be, at any rate, not with someone who claims to be
>Catholic.
>>I am referring to the Church.
>Then which various theologies can you mean? Perhaps you understand the
>term in a way I simply don't.
Certainly the Dominicans and the Jesuits have argued at length about
their different views.
>>The Greeks were not free to choose at the Council of Florence.
>Which means you think the council a fraud, a fake, of no concern to
>the Greek Orthodox you seem to defend in all this against The Church?
It is not clear to me, how much the West understood the real
situation.
>I really don't see the filioque as such the problem the Greek seem to
>imagine.
You wouldn't
>And I don't really see that they need insist upon the married
>priesthood, save for particular isolated orders or purposes.
I don't think they really care what the West does in that regard.
>In short, it wasn't The Church that split from the Greek, but rather
>the other way 'round. And it all seems so pointless for them to
>remain apart,
As I have explained it before, the schism was ultimately the result
of the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. It is much like the
situation in the former Soviet Union.
As such, it is pointless to blame the Greeks for the situation. We
just need to pray that God will resolve the difficulties that remain.
>save for their opposition to the 'spirit of Vatican II', 'new order',
>'new' catecheses, and the like (which reluctance I _can_ understand).
I am surprised that you would make any exception, at all.
BugDaddy
dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) wrote:
>It is _not_ a dogma of the Orthodox Church that the Holy Spirit porceeds
>from the Father alone, in isolation from the Son and from the relation
>between the Father and the Son. Some Orthodox may believe this as
>personal opinion, either from a spirit of division against Catholicism o
>for better reasons, but it is not dogma.
I agree. Since the Greeks reject the Council of Florence, we must see
their position simply as that of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
As such, there is complete ambiguity as to what they believe -- other
than that the Holy Spirit does indeed proceed from the Father.
>It is _not_ a dogma of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds
>from the Son in exactly the same way He proceeds from the Father. While
>all three Persons are coeternal and equal in power, glory, and majesty,
>the Father is nevertheless the ultimate source of all being.
I have tried over and over to point this out. Unfortunately, all too
many Catholics cling to the extreme views taken by Saint Thomas
Aquinas.
>I have seen an interesting argument that the _Latin_ word filioque was
>necesary to resolve an ambiguity in the Latin translation of the Greek
>Creed -- an ambiguity of translation that had fueled heresies in Spain and
>elsewhere. According to this argument, the meaning of the Greek original
>is clear without adding a corresponding phrase. If this view were
>accepted, it would make perfect sense for those Churches whose original
>liturgical documents were in Greek to follow the Greek original while
>the Latin Chruch continued to follow the amended latin translation with
>the filioque.
I have seen that argument also. I believe Pope John Paul II traces
the Filioque to such a translation problem. It has much to do with
the ambiguity of the *ablative case* in Latin.
In addition, I would point out that the West does not sharply
distinguish between theology and the *economy of salvation* in the way
that the Greek church does. As a result, the West slips back and
forth between the two in a way that the Greeks consider unthinkable.
Finally, I would say that the West does not emphasize the Trinity in
the Way that the Greeks do. Anyone who attends the Divine Liturgy of
Saint John Chrysostom. would understand what I mean. For the Trinity
is really emphasized by the Greeks. Christ is always seen in the
light of the Trinity.
Thus, for example, after Communion, Christ's Faithful sing:
"We have seen the true light. We have received the heavenly Spirit.
We have found the true Faith. And we worship the undivided Trinity.
For the Trinity has saved us." From the Divine Liturgy of Saint John
Chrysostom.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>
>>>You ran out of arguments when you started asking how other people
>>>would judge us.
>
>>I don't appreciate your epithets. I don't like your calling people
>>names simply because they disagree with you. My suggestion was to let
>>other people judge, apart from you and me. How you find that
>>comparable to your behavior on these topics, I'm sure you would have
>>difficulty explaining.
>
>What epithet?
A heretical 'super-Catholic' full of hot air, and whatever else you
called me. Do you remember, now? I suggested _you_ had run out of
anything to say when you began insulting me, in that fashion.
>I simply said that you had run out of arguments when
>you started asking how other people would judge us.
What that means is that it is for others to judge. It's another way of
saying you might be wrong, and that others might agree that you are
wrong. You might even be right, if you could find someone to agree
with you on this seeming defense of the Greek Orthodox?
>>It was the original meaning, if not phrased that way.
>
>If it was the original meaning, then there is no point to the
>addition. So it would be best to leave it out.
Which is to say the Apostles should not have composed their Creed,
because all was already known to them? The point of the Creed is for
Catholics to confess the articles of the faith. You insist that the
Holy Spirit does not proceed from Father and Son as the Creed has it -
proceeds from The Father and The Son. I say it does. I say it not
simply because it is now in the Creed, but because it does not
contradict the Greek understanding of it, at least at one time. And it
is what The Church teaches.
>>Both Greek and Catholic agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
>>Father and Son.
>
>You know that's not true.
Consider it a fact, in the age of faith. I have no idea what the Greek
Orthodox believe, today.
>I think that the Filioque is part of the theology of the West.
And the east, and the north and south. It's what it means to call The
Church, The Church Universal.
>I have indicated that I recite the Filioque many times.
In the hopes that it be removed from the Creed? You keep dodging my
questions on this. You are intent to be evasive. I can imagine why.
But I would still like your answer on this, and if you so wish.
>>I suspect, however, your sense of this to others, or to me, in the
>>future, will betray you. That is, your opinion on this really hasn't
>>changed.
>
>I believe that I have been very consistent in what I have said.
Unfortunately to the fault where you ignore the evidence to the
contrary, calling it ambiguous or the writing of a father he was
somehow _not_ part of The Church, but merely writing on behalf of the
west, so-called, and therefore somehow utterly unreliable.
>>Then so is English. Then so is French. Then so is German. There is
>>not a language far better than any other that would render, say,
>>Latin, a "horrible language to use".
>
>Not true at all. Greek is much better.
Then so is English. So is French. So is . . Latin. The number of words
in Latin do not tell you the way in which words are formed, or the
importance of how they are conjugated, when and why. It may be
difficult, and require far more words in one language than another, to
get the idea of what is expressed originally in one and not the other.
But this idea of yours that Greek is "much better" is nonsense, in my
opinion. And, I suppose, we'll have to just agree to disagree on it. I
do suspect your preference for Greek does not, however, stem from your
halting attempt to weigh dictionaries, nor even your attempt to find
fault with Aquinas, but rather on your identification of the language
with your cause and your 'side'.
>All Catholics do not confess the same wording of the Creed. I know
>that the Second Vatican Council ordered the Eastern churches to return
>to their roots. That would imply that the Filioque be dropped.
But the Eastern Catholic _does_ include the filioque, as he ought. It
is as The Church teaches. And if you imagine that the fathers of
Vatican II desired it be removed from the Eastern Catholic liturgy,
something so important, as it has historically been, would have been
stated, at the time.
>line with that the Eparchy of Parma did just that about three years
>ago.
Which is their problem, and yours, if you think the Creed something to
be toyed with for the sake of worldly ambitions rather that to confess
obedience to the holy things of God.
>>Are you referring to the filioque clause by your word, "shame"?
>
>I am referring to the Latinization of the Eastern liturgies.
What was introduced, then, that you consider to be so 'shameful'? Can
you say?
>>Then which various theologies can you mean? Perhaps you understand the
>>term in a way I simply don't.
>
>Certainly the Dominicans and the Jesuits have argued at length about
>their different views.
You claim the Domincans and Jesuits, least those still faithful to
orthodox Catholicism, embrace entire theologies which not only
contradict one another but possibly that of The Church, itself? Can
you provide details?
>>I really don't see the filioque as such the problem the Greek seem to
>>imagine.
>
>You wouldn't
I'm Catholic. I would not. So were their forefathers. Neither would
they.
>>And I don't really see that they need insist upon the married
>>priesthood, save for particular isolated orders or purposes.
>
>I don't think they really care what the West does in that regard.
You miss the point. I was referring to their attempt to negotiate
their way into full communion by including such as a demand.
>>In short, it wasn't The Church that split from the Greek, but rather
>>the other way 'round. And it all seems so pointless for them to
>>remain apart,
>
>As I have explained it before, the schism was ultimately the result
>of the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. It is much like the
>situation in the former Soviet Union.
You've lost me. How is the situation similar to the staged coup in
Moscow?
>>save for their opposition to the 'spirit of Vatican II', 'new order',
>>'new' catecheses, and the like (which reluctance I _can_ understand).
>
>I am surprised that you would make any exception, at all.
They are right to remain faithful, as a minimum, to the rites and
outward observances of their fathers, to what they wrote (where they
still agree), and so on. It may be a time machine. But a time machine
might be just what's needed in an archaically 'modern' world. It would
be disastrous for the neo-pagan 'better way' to also infect the Greek
in schism, or the Eastern Catholic even. But other than their
distaste, shared with myself, for the 'spirit of Vatican II', which
has even ironically given rise to this easy ecumenism, so-called, I
believe they should still put aside their misunderstandings and seek
full communion with Rome, in obedience to the Holy See. I don't say
they should come with false humility, hat in hand. But whatever
assertion they bring ought to be that informed by holy charity and the
desire to satisfy their church fathers' desire for a unified Church
Militant; unified by orthodox Catholic dogma, not by the precepts of
the world. Perhaps by their addition some damage might be further
caused to the unholy 'spirit of Vatican II' and those who think the
'better way' ever really is, in order to ratchet up the rout which
inevitably such worldly schemes as the present heresy must suffer.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) wrote:
>I have seen an interesting argument that the _Latin_ word filioque was
>necesary to resolve an ambiguity in the Latin translation of the Greek
>Creed -- an ambiguity of translation that had fueled heresies in Spain and
>elsewhere. According to this argument, the meaning of the Greek original
>is clear without adding a corresponding phrase. If this view were
>accepted, it would make perfect sense for those Churches whose original
>liturgical documents were in Greek to follow the Greek original while
>the Latin Chruch continued to follow the amended latin translation with
>the filioque.
Which is not the case for the Eastern Catholic, but rather the Greek.
I believe you once admonished me for not accepting people where they
were in their 'faith journey' (or the like) - let sleeping Protestants
lie, or something of the sort. However, I happen to be Catholic, not
'free Catholic', not 'Catholic reformed', not the 'god within', nor
whatever else. And as a Catholic I am obliged to state clearly,
simply, and leave it there when I see someone misrepresenting what I
know to be true about The Church and about what it teaches. It may get
me kicked off one phony list or another. It may lead to certain people
trying to flame me or call me names. &c. anyway.
The Greek agreed that the filioque matched their understanding. It
does not appear to be the case, today, at least based on the opinion
of those who post here apparently, it seems to me, on behalf of the
Greek, as opposed to the Eastern Catholic. What they seem to demand,
what sense I get of it anyway when I can't get a straight answer, is
the removal of "The Son" from that part of the Creed, supposedly to
satisfy some Eastern Catholic and, of course, the Greek. Yet such
omission, typical of the 'Mass of omission', itself, aka 'new order',
says by its absence that the Holy Spirit might well not proceed from
The Son, which is not what The Church believes, and so neither the
Greek fathers.
Peace.
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>>>You ran out of arguments when you started asking how other people
>>>>would judge us.
>>>I don't appreciate your epithets. I don't like your calling people
>>>names simply because they disagree with you. My suggestion was to let
>>>other people judge, apart from you and me. How you find that
>>>comparable to your behavior on these topics, I'm sure you would have
>>>difficulty explaining.
>>What epithet?
>A heretical 'super-Catholic' full of hot air, and whatever else you
>called me. Do you remember, now? I suggested _you_ had run out of
>anything to say when you began insulting me, in that fashion.
Look what I said: "You ran out of arguments when you started asking
how other people would judge us." There is no reference there to a
"heretical 'super-Catholic' full of hot air."
>>I simply said that you had run out of arguments when
>>you started asking how other people would judge us.
>What that means is that it is for others to judge. It's another way of
>saying you might be wrong, and that others might agree that you are
>wrong. You might even be right, if you could find someone to agree
>with you on this seeming defense of the Greek Orthodox?
I don't care how people judge us, or me. They will judge as they see
fit. This is a public forum, after all. There's no doubt about it.
>>If it was the original meaning, then there is no point to the
>>addition. So it would be best to leave it out.
>Which is to say the Apostles should not have composed their Creed,
>because all was already known to them? The point of the Creed is for
>Catholics to confess the articles of the faith.
But the very reason to make an addition is that the original does not
say what one wants it to say. Yet, you say that the Filioque adds
nothing to the original formulation of the Creed of Constantinople.
Ergo, there was no need to add it.
Now the truth is that the Filioque was added because the West
mistranslated the Creed of Constantinople. This was essentially
because of the inadequacy of the Latin language to express what the
Greek expresses quite simply. So the West tried to fix up the mistake
they made by adding something that has caused problems ever since.
>You insist that the
>Holy Spirit does not proceed from Father and Son as the Creed has it -
>proceeds from The Father and The Son. I say it does. I say it not
>simply because it is now in the Creed, but because it does not
>contradict the Greek understanding of it, at least at one time. And it
>is what The Church teaches.
Now, Mark, you forget so quickly. I do recite the Filioque when I
attend the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V. So don't keep saying that
I don't.
>>You know that's not true.
>Consider it a fact, in the age of faith. I have no idea what the Greek
>Orthodox believe, today.
It never was true.
>>I think that the Filioque is part of the theology of the West.
>And the east, and the north and south. It's what it means to call The
>Church, The Church Universal.
No, Mark, the Filioque is not infallible and not *universal.*
>>I have indicated that I recite the Filioque many times.
>In the hopes that it be removed from the Creed? You keep dodging my
>questions on this. You are intent to be evasive. I can imagine why.
>But I would still like your answer on this, and if you so wish.
I have no hope that the West will ever remove it. I have explained
this to you many times. For there are Super-Catholic fundamentalists
who would have a fit if it were removed from the Creed. For that
reason, I see the need for two theologies.
>>>I suspect, however, your sense of this to others, or to me, in the
>>>future, will betray you. That is, your opinion on this really hasn't
>>>changed.
That is correct. I believe that there are two theologies.
>>I believe that I have been very consistent in what I have said.
>Unfortunately to the fault where you ignore the evidence to the
>contrary, calling it ambiguous or the writing of a father he was
>somehow _not_ part of The Church, but merely writing on behalf of the
>west, so-called, and therefore somehow utterly unreliable.
I am not quite sure what you mean. Certainly the Western Fathers
spoke of the Western way of understanding things. The Eastern Fathers
spoke for the Eastern way.
>>Not true at all. Greek is much better.
>Then so is English. So is French. So is . . Latin. The number of words
>in Latin do not tell you the way in which words are formed, or the
>importance of how they are conjugated, when and why. It may be
>difficult, and require far more words in one language than another, to
>get the idea of what is expressed originally in one and not the other.
>But this idea of yours that Greek is "much better" is nonsense, in my
>opinion. And, I suppose, we'll have to just agree to disagree on it. I
>do suspect your preference for Greek does not, however, stem from your
>halting attempt to weigh dictionaries, nor even your attempt to find
>fault with Aquinas, but rather on your identification of the language
>with your cause and your 'side'.
It is the simple fact, Mark, that the Scholastic theologians
practically re-invented the language, in order to make it suitable for
theology. Unfortunately, buried under their efforts was the earlier
understanding based on a very poor language.
>>All Catholics do not confess the same wording of the Creed. I know
>>that the Second Vatican Council ordered the Eastern churches to return
>>to their roots. That would imply that the Filioque be dropped.
>But the Eastern Catholic _does_ include the filioque, as he ought. It
>is as The Church teaches. And if you imagine that the fathers of
>Vatican II desired it be removed from the Eastern Catholic liturgy,
>something so important, as it has historically been, would have been
>stated, at the time.
There was no need to state it. They stated the principle. In any
event, the former bishop of Parma suppressed the Filioque in the
Eparchy of Parma. I would hope that he will do the same in Passaic.
We shall see...
>>line with that the Eparchy of Parma did just that about three years
>>ago.
>Which is their problem, and yours, if you think the Creed something to
>be toyed with for the sake of worldly ambitions rather that to confess
>obedience to the holy things of God.
It has nothing to do with worldly ambitions. There is no need for the
Filioque in the context of Greek theology. I assure you that what was
done in Parma was known to Rome.
>>I am referring to the Latinization of the Eastern liturgies.
>What was introduced, then, that you consider to be so 'shameful'? Can
>you say?
I did not say shameful, I said it was a shame. There is a difference.
>>Certainly the Dominicans and the Jesuits have argued at length about
>>their different views.
>You claim the Domincans and Jesuits, least those still faithful to
>orthodox Catholicism, embrace entire theologies which not only
>contradict one another but possibly that of The Church, itself? Can
>you provide details?
My father who had attended a Jesuit house of studies told me about it
years ago. I believe it has to do with the Dominican idea that at
times God's graces destroy the freedom of the person receiving them,
so that he acts by way of necessity in obedience to God. As I recall,
the Jesuits condemned the idea as heresy and the Dominicans condemned
the Jesuits, likewise. They appealed to the Roman Patriarch -- I'm
not sure which one -- who looked at their arguments and told them both
to go home, without resolving the question.
>>You wouldn't
>I'm Catholic. I would not. So were their forefathers. Neither would
>they.
I don't suppose they would, unless they looked at the issue
>>I don't think they really care what the West does in that regard.
>You miss the point. I was referring to their attempt to negotiate
>their way into full communion by including such as a demand.
It is not an issue. They do not care what the West does. So far as
what they might do, there is no question that they would be allowed to
continue as they are. After all the Eastern Catholic churches in
Europe do have a married priesthood.
There is a problem in the United States and (I think) in Canada. Just
today, I was reading an article in Eastern Catholic Life about how
Bishop Ireland treated Father Toth with utter contempt, because he was
married. Due to Bishop Ireland's subsequent efforts the American
bishops asked Rome to abolish the Eastern churches in the United
States. Rome refused to do that, but did order the Eastern churches
not to ordain married men.
This story was apparently prepared by the American Catholic News
Service. The fact that it was written is a sign that the Rome is
probably going to relax the restrictions on the married clergy in the
United States over the next few years.
>>As I have explained it before, the schism was ultimately the result
>>of the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. It is much like the
>>situation in the former Soviet Union.
>You've lost me. How is the situation similar to the staged coup in
>Moscow?
The state of the Greek church under the Turks was similar to that of
the church in Russia. Had the Communists oppressed the church in
Russia for 500 years, it would be in much the same state.
>>I am surprised that you would make any exception, at all.
>They are right to remain faithful, as a minimum, to the rites and
>outward observances of their fathers, to what they wrote (where they
>still agree), and so on. It may be a time machine. But a time machine
>might be just what's needed in an archaically 'modern' world. It would
>be disastrous for the neo-pagan 'better way' to also infect the Greek
>in schism, or the Eastern Catholic even. But other than their
>distaste, shared with myself, for the 'spirit of Vatican II', which
>has even ironically given rise to this easy ecumenism, so-called, I
>believe they should still put aside their misunderstandings and seek
>full communion with Rome, in obedience to the Holy See. I don't say
>they should come with false humility, hat in hand. But whatever
>assertion they bring ought to be that informed by holy charity and the
>desire to satisfy their church fathers' desire for a unified Church
>Militant; unified by orthodox Catholic dogma, not by the precepts of
>the world. Perhaps by their addition some damage might be further
>caused to the unholy 'spirit of Vatican II' and those who think the
>'better way' ever really is, in order to ratchet up the rout which
>inevitably such worldly schemes as the present heresy must suffer.
I'm not sure what all that means, but I am in favor of unity.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>
>>A heretical 'super-Catholic' full of hot air, and whatever else you
>>called me. Do you remember, now?
>There is no reference there to a
>"heretical 'super-Catholic' full of hot air."
I objected to your throwing around these insults. I still do, if you
were to continue. And I don't know who you think you are convincing of
anything by playing Gracie Fields. She _was_ better at it, btw.
>>because all was already known to them? The point of the Creed is for
>>Catholics to confess the articles of the faith.
>
>But the very reason to make an addition is that the original does not
>say what one wants it to say. Yet, you say that the Filioque adds
>nothing to the original formulation . . .
>Now the truth is that the Filioque was added because the West
>mistranslated the Creed of Constantinople.
No, that's simply wrong. Both the eastern fathers and western fathers
believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.
>Now, Mark, you forget so quickly. I do recite the Filioque
And wish you didn't. That's what _you_ are forgetting, here.
>>And the east, and the north and south. It's what it means to call The
>>Church, The Church Universal.
>
>No, Mark, the Filioque is not infallible and not *universal.*
It's in the Creed. What do you think the Creed is - some sort of
pseudo-Magisterium, or the like? Think about it.
>For there are Super-Catholic fundamentalists
Again, for how many times it may be, I wish you would be honest and
answer the question - what do you mean by 'super' Catholic? It clearly
is intended as an insult. If you continue to be evasive in this, those
others you do not fear may well judge in a way you may not like.
>>Unfortunately to the fault where you ignore the evidence to the
>>contrary, calling it ambiguous or the writing of a father he was
>>somehow _not_ part of The Church, but merely writing on behalf of the
>>west, so-called, and therefore somehow utterly unreliable.
>
>I am not quite sure what you mean.
Then you have a selectively short memory. When I cited the opinion of
Church fathers on this, you divided them into camps, to begin with,
paying no heed to those you might conveniently dismiss as 'western'. I
told you, then, that all were fathers of The Church, Universal and
united. You didn't seem to understand. It seems you still don't.
>the Scholastic theologians
>practically re-invented the language, in order to make it suitable for
>theology. Unfortunately, buried under their efforts was the earlier
>understanding based on a very poor language.
But that's utter nonsense. To even suggest that Aquinas did not
understand Theophyl or Bede, for ex., is I think symptomatic of how
far one can go in pursuit of a poorly considered cause.
>>But the Eastern Catholic _does_ include the filioque, as he ought. It
>>is as The Church teaches. And if you imagine that the fathers of
>>Vatican II desired it be removed from the Eastern Catholic liturgy,
>>something so important, as it has historically been, would have been
>>stated, at the time.
>
>There was no need to state it. They stated the principle.
And what, dare I ask, was the 'principle' they stated removing the
filioque from the Creed, or rendering irrelevant - which is the same?
>>Which is their problem, and yours, if you think the Creed something to
>>be toyed with for the sake of worldly ambitions rather that to confess
>>obedience to the holy things of God.
>
>It has nothing to do with worldly ambitions.
I would suspect it does. You don't seem to be thinking about any of
this very clearly. You consistently misunderstand simple reference and
basic syntax, as it is. I suggest it has to do with worldly ambitions.
Let others judge. You've confessed no objection to such.
>>What was introduced, then, that you consider to be so 'shameful'? Can
>>you say?
>
>I did not say shameful, I said it was a shame. There is a difference.
That wasn't the question. You really don't have an answer perhaps
because you really had nothing to complain about, in the first place?
What was introduced, then, that you consider to be such a 'shame'?
>>You claim the Domincans and Jesuits, least those still faithful to
>>orthodox Catholicism, embrace entire theologies which not only
>>contradict one another but possibly that of The Church, itself? Can
>>you provide details?
>
>My father who had attended a Jesuit house of studies told me about it
>years ago. I believe it has to do with the Dominican idea that at
>times God's graces destroy the freedom of the person receiving them,
>so that he acts by way of necessity in obedience to God. As I recall,
>the Jesuits condemned the idea as heresy and the Dominicans condemned
>the Jesuits, likewise. They appealed to the Roman Patriarch -- I'm
>not sure which one -- who looked at their arguments and told them both
>to go home, without resolving the question.
So what you're saying is that you exaggerated to make a point.
>There is a problem in the United States and (I think) in Canada. Just
>today, I was reading an article in Eastern Catholic Life about how
>Bishop Ireland treated Father Toth with utter contempt, because he was
>married. Due to Bishop Ireland's subsequent efforts the American
>bishops asked Rome to abolish the Eastern churches in the United
>States. Rome refused to do that, but did order the Eastern churches
>not to ordain married men.
Which means what to you? That a married clergy ought to be the norm
against anything The Church might say, were it healthy and not in the
grip of heresy? I'm not sure you have a point with this, unless it is
this word 'contempt' that bothers you; and if no reason was given, it
_would_ seem to reflect an absence of charity, perhaps.
>The fact that it was written is a sign that the Rome is
>probably going to relax the restrictions on the married clergy in the
>United States over the next few years.
It isn't about the Greek or the Eastern Catholic, is it? It's about
married clergy in the dioceses and in the old saintly orders, and the
like, which has been ruled a dead issue, btw - something the pope has
no authority to permit by virtue of The Magisterium. Is this the
answer to my question above? Was _this_ your point with that?
>the church in Russia. Had the Communists oppressed the church in
>Russia for 500 years, it would be in much the same state.
I understand that the Greek Orthodox, if that is now your reference,
was essentially an official state church and controlled by the KGB. Do
you believe otherwise?
>>They are right to remain faithful, as a minimum, to the rites and
>>outward observances of their fathers, to what they wrote (where they
>>still agree), and so on. It may be a time machine. But a time machine
>>might be just what's needed in an archaically 'modern' world. It would
>>be disastrous for the neo-pagan 'better way' to also infect the Greek
>>in schism, or the Eastern Catholic even. But other than their
>>distaste, shared with myself, for the 'spirit of Vatican II', which
>>has even ironically given rise to this easy ecumenism, so-called, I
>>believe they should still put aside their misunderstandings and seek
>>full communion with Rome, in obedience to the Holy See. I don't say
>>they should come with false humility, hat in hand. But whatever
>>assertion they bring ought to be that informed by holy charity and the
>>desire to satisfy their church fathers' desire for a unified Church
>>Militant; unified by orthodox Catholic dogma, not by the precepts of
>>the world. Perhaps by their addition some damage might be further
>>caused to the unholy 'spirit of Vatican II' and those who think the
>>'better way' ever really is, in order to ratchet up the rout which
>>inevitably such worldly schemes as the present heresy must suffer.
>
>I'm not sure what all that means, but I am in favor of unity.
But what could you imagine it to mean?
Peace.
Evan Kalenik
timot...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm glad were fortunate enough to have someone like you - who
> actually knows more than Christ - teach us about how our church
> should be built.
I do not claim to know more than Christ. But if you are looking for the
Church that Christ established and still exists today you only have to
look at what you know as the Orthodox Faith, or the Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church used to be part of it, but sadly thought she
knew more than Christ and rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit to do
her own thing.
> Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will
> build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against
> it.
And it hasn't, in almost 2000 years.
> 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
> you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
> on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Yes, that is what Christ promised to His Church and that is still true
today.
EK>While you may try to make the bishop of Rome into some kind of
EK>benevelont dictator, he remains a dictator over those who come
EK>under him. That is not the way of the Church.
> You continue to remain ignorant about the authority of the pope
> and his role in governing the church. The structure of the Catholic
> Church is the same today as it was in the time of the apostles:
The Catholic Church, yes. The Roman Catholic Church, no.
> Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you
> are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of
> God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
> Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole
> structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in
> the Lord;
Yes, that is the Church today, as yesterday. One day Rome will rejoin
that Church, but until then we can only hope.
<a bunch of quotes that only supports my statement that the pope is now
the dictator of the Roman Catholic Church deleted.>
Evan
BugDaddy
Effective on Flowery Sunday, March 23, 1997 (known as Palm Sunday in
the West) the Ruthenian Catholic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey,
USofA, will no longer use the Filioque in its liturgy. At the same
time, several other liturgical changes will be put into effect for the
purpose of making the Ruthenian Catholic liturgy conform to the
Orthodox usage.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
BugDaddy
Mark, what a pleasure to hear from you!
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) wrote:
>>I have seen an interesting argument that the _Latin_ word filioque was
>>necesary to resolve an ambiguity in the Latin translation of the Greek
>>Creed -- an ambiguity of translation that had fueled heresies in Spain and
>>elsewhere. According to this argument, the meaning of the Greek original
>>is clear without adding a corresponding phrase. If this view were
>>accepted, it would make perfect sense for those Churches whose original
>>liturgical documents were in Greek to follow the Greek original while
>>the Latin Chruch continued to follow the amended latin translation with
>>the filioque.
>Which is not the case for the Eastern Catholic, but rather the Greek.
I have the pleasure to tell you that as of March 23, 1997 the
Ruthenian Catholic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA, will no
longer use the Filioque in its liturgy.
>I believe you once admonished me for not accepting people where they
>were in their 'faith journey' (or the like) - let sleeping Protestants
>lie, or something of the sort. However, I happen to be Catholic, not
>'free Catholic', not 'Catholic reformed', not the 'god within', nor
>whatever else. And as a Catholic I am obliged to state clearly,
>simply, and leave it there when I see someone misrepresenting what I
>know to be true about The Church and about what it teaches. It may get
>me kicked off one phony list or another. It may lead to certain people
>trying to flame me or call me names. &c. anyway.
I happen to be Catholic as well, Mark. The Filioque, however, is not
catholic, but Western.
>The Greek agreed that the filioque matched their understanding. It
>does not appear to be the case, today, at least based on the opinion
>of those who post here apparently, it seems to me, on behalf of the
>Greek, as opposed to the Eastern Catholic.
There is no opposition here, between the Orthodox and the Eastern
Catholic -- or at least after Flowery Sunday there will be none.
>What they seem to demand,
>what sense I get of it anyway when I can't get a straight answer, is
>the removal of "The Son" from that part of the Creed, supposedly to
>satisfy some Eastern Catholic and, of course, the Greek. Yet such
>omission, typical of the 'Mass of omission', itself, aka 'new order',
>says by its absence that the Holy Spirit might well not proceed from
>The Son, which is not what The Church believes, and so neither the
>Greek fathers.
It is not an omission, Mark, but an addition. The Western church
added it to the Creed of Constantinople, though there was no need in
the Creed for such an addition. This addition, was due -- as
dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) said -- to a translation
error in the Latin version of the Creed.
Thanx once again, Mark, for the opportunity to comment on your *grand*
theology.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
Bill Overcamp
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>There is no reference there to a
>>"heretical 'super-Catholic' full of hot air."
>I objected to your throwing around these insults. I still do, if you
>were to continue. And I don't know who you think you are convincing of
>anything by playing Gracie Fields. She _was_ better at it, btw.
But Mark, there is no reference to such. If I were to call you
something horrible, you might object, but there is no such reference,
so just calm down.
>>But the very reason to make an addition is that the original does not
>>say what one wants it to say. Yet, you say that the Filioque adds
>>nothing to the original formulation . . .
>>Now the truth is that the Filioque was added because the West
>>mistranslated the Creed of Constantinople.
>No, that's simply wrong. Both the eastern fathers and western fathers
>believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.
No, Mark, you read it wrongly. They say that the Son sends the Holy
Spirit. But that reference is not related to the Procession. You are
mixing two fundamentally different matters.
>>Now, Mark, you forget so quickly. I do recite the Filioque
>And wish you didn't. That's what _you_ are forgetting, here.
Well, Mark, after March 23, 1997, the Catholic Ruthenian church I
attend will no longer use the Filioque.
>>>And the east, and the north and south. It's what it means to call The
>>>Church, The Church Universal.
>>No, Mark, the Filioque is not infallible and not *universal.*
>It's in the Creed. What do you think the Creed is - some sort of
>pseudo-Magisterium, or the like? Think about it.
It is the Western version of the Creed. It is not universal, not
catholic.
>>For there are Super-Catholic fundamentalists
>Again, for how many times it may be, I wish you would be honest and
>answer the question - what do you mean by 'super' Catholic? It clearly
>is intended as an insult. If you continue to be evasive in this, those
>others you do not fear may well judge in a way you may not like.
Here again, Mark, you appeal to the masses. I am not concerned about
how they judge me. I use the term super-Catholic to refer to Catholic
fundamentalists.
>>I am not quite sure what you mean.
>Then you have a selectively short memory. When I cited the opinion of
>Church fathers on this, you divided them into camps, to begin with,
>paying no heed to those you might conveniently dismiss as 'western'. I
>told you, then, that all were fathers of The Church, Universal and
>united. You didn't seem to understand. It seems you still don't.
I object to your trying to interpret the Fathers of the East as if
they were saying things that they did not say. When they say that the
Son sends the Holy Spirit they are not talking about the Procession.
It is just that simple.
>>the Scholastic theologians
>>practically re-invented the language, in order to make it suitable for
>>theology. Unfortunately, buried under their efforts was the earlier
>>understanding based on a very poor language.
>But that's utter nonsense. To even suggest that Aquinas did not
>understand Theophyl or Bede, for ex., is I think symptomatic of how
>far one can go in pursuit of a poorly considered cause.
I am sure he would have understood them, but not sure they would have
understood him.
>>There was no need to state it. They stated the principle.
>And what, dare I ask, was the 'principle' they stated removing the
>filioque from the Creed, or rendering irrelevant - which is the same?
They said that the Eastern churches should return to their roots. I
can at long last tell you that on March 23, 1997, the Ruthenian
Catolic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA, will do that.
>>It has nothing to do with worldly ambitions.
>I would suspect it does. You don't seem to be thinking about any of
>this very clearly. You consistently misunderstand simple reference and
>basic syntax, as it is. I suggest it has to do with worldly ambitions.
>Let others judge. You've confessed no objection to such.
Here again, you call upon the masses to support your poor ideas.
>>I did not say shameful, I said it was a shame. There is a difference.
>That wasn't the question. You really don't have an answer perhaps
>because you really had nothing to complain about, in the first place?
>What was introduced, then, that you consider to be such a 'shame'?
It was a shame that the Eastern churches were Romanized.
>>My father who had attended a Jesuit house of studies told me about it
>>years ago. I believe it has to do with the Dominican idea that at
>>times God's graces destroy the freedom of the person receiving them,
>>so that he acts by way of necessity in obedience to God. As I recall,
>>the Jesuits condemned the idea as heresy and the Dominicans condemned
>>the Jesuits, likewise. They appealed to the Roman Patriarch -- I'm
>>not sure which one -- who looked at their arguments and told them both
>>to go home, without resolving the question.
>So what you're saying is that you exaggerated to make a point.
Not at all. There is a theological disagreement that continues to
this day.
>>There is a problem in the United States and (I think) in Canada. Just
>>today, I was reading an article in Eastern Catholic Life about how
>>Bishop Ireland treated Father Toth with utter contempt, because he was
>>married. Due to Bishop Ireland's subsequent efforts the American
>>bishops asked Rome to abolish the Eastern churches in the United
>>States. Rome refused to do that, but did order the Eastern churches
>>not to ordain married men.
>Which means what to you? That a married clergy ought to be the norm
>against anything The Church might say, were it healthy and not in the
>grip of heresy? I'm not sure you have a point with this, unless it is
>this word 'contempt' that bothers you; and if no reason was given, it
>_would_ seem to reflect an absence of charity, perhaps.
The Eastern churches have always had a married clergy. Who are you to
call them heretical, when the Roman church does not? I think that
Bishop Ireland's contempt for the Eastern churches would denote some
lack of charity.
>>The fact that it was written is a sign that the Rome is
>>probably going to relax the restrictions on the married clergy in the
>>United States over the next few years.
>It isn't about the Greek or the Eastern Catholic, is it? It's about
>married clergy in the dioceses and in the old saintly orders, and the
>like, which has been ruled a dead issue, btw - something the pope has
>no authority to permit by virtue of The Magisterium. Is this the
>answer to my question above? Was _this_ your point with that?
The pope could change the practice of the West over night if he wanted
to. He certainly has the required authority. The Church has never
said otherwise, but I suppose in the mind of a Super-Catholic, it may
seem that way.
>>the church in Russia. Had the Communists oppressed the church in
>>Russia for 500 years, it would be in much the same state.
>I understand that the Greek Orthodox, if that is now your reference,
>was essentially an official state church and controlled by the KGB. Do
>you believe otherwise?
No, I suspect that they were controlled by the KGB. But I will let
God judge the matter.
>>I'm not sure what all that means, but I am in favor of unity.
>But what could you imagine it to mean?
Mark, you don't even know what you mean yourself. You go on these
tangents, jumping from one idea to another without any regard to logic
or common sense.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) wrote:
>I have the pleasure to tell you that as of March 23, 1997 the
>Ruthenian Catholic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA, will no
>longer use the Filioque in its liturgy.
Bully for them, I guess you want me to say. I can tell you of
something called 'new order', said in most putatively Catholic
churches, these days, which I believe is not even valid. I've even
tried to make the case for that point at
http;//www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm. That some in the
Ruthenian Eastern Catholic have decided, similarly, to go their own
way, is not surprizing, and is something which hurts them more than
anyone, I think.
>I happen to be Catholic as well, Mark. The Filioque, however, is not
>catholic, but Western.
I understand, now, it's also not part of Eastern Catholicism, Passaic,
NJ, USA, either. And, yet, there it is - in the Creed. It's in The
Mass. I ought to know. I've got a copy of that, as well, at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/The_Mass.htm.
>>The Greek agreed that the filioque matched their understanding. It
>>does not appear to be the case, today, at least based on the opinion
>>of those who post here apparently, it seems to me, on behalf of the
>>Greek, as opposed to the Eastern Catholic.
>
>There is no opposition here, between the Orthodox and the Eastern
>Catholic -- or at least after Flowery Sunday there will be none.
I hadn't realized that Eastern Catholicism spread no further than
Passaic, NJ, USA.
>dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) said -- to a translation
>error in the Latin version of the Creed.
One of the denizens of 'occupied UseNet', perhaps
(bit.listserv.catholic - meaning bit.listserv.militant.protestant)?
Funny how some folks never seem to post where people can actually
answer their pet theories and assertions? (oh, well) But, once again,
the Greek understanding at Florence was not contrary to 'proceeds from
Father and Son'. If you confess only, proceeds from The Father, by the
omission it says what omissions in 'new order' say - it's not
important, and it's not important to clarify the point in The Creed.
And yet it was. And, clearly, and particularly for a few folk in New
Jersey, nothing has changed, so twoud seem.
>Thanx once again, Mark, for the opportunity to comment on your *grand*
>theology.
If I have said anything, here, it's only that of The Church, backed up
by the saints and doctors, encylicals and bulls, council documents and
whatever else; some of which you just ignored out of hand because I
suppose they tended to reveal your arguments and assertions for just
what they were. If you reject _my_ "grand theology", it's only The
Church you reject. Unless you think I've written something other than
that?
Peace.
BugDaddy
Always a pleasure, Mark.
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>I have the pleasure to tell you that as of March 23, 1997 the
>>Ruthenian Catholic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA, will no
>>longer use the Filioque in its liturgy.
>Bully for them, I guess you want me to say. I can tell you of
>something called 'new order', said in most putatively Catholic
>churches, these days, which I believe is not even valid. I've even
>tried to make the case for that point at
>http;//www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm. That some in the
>Ruthenian Eastern Catholic have decided, similarly, to go their own
>way, is not surprizing, and is something which hurts them more than
>anyone, I think.
It shows that the Filioque is not catholic -- not universal. With
regard to the New Age Liturgy, I can only say that that is the way
that the Roman church is going. It is you who insist on going your
own way.
>>I happen to be Catholic as well, Mark. The Filioque, however, is not
>>catholic, but Western.
>I understand, now, it's also not part of Eastern Catholicism, Passaic,
>NJ, USA, either. And, yet, there it is - in the Creed. It's in The
>Mass. I ought to know. I've got a copy of that, as well, at
>http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/The_Mass.htm.
It is in the Western version of the Creed. It was never in the Creed
used in the East. The Western church, in fact, agreed at Florence
that it did not need to be there.
>>There is no opposition here, between the Orthodox and the Eastern
>>Catholic -- or at least after Flowery Sunday there will be none.
>I hadn't realized that Eastern Catholicism spread no further than
>Passaic, NJ, USA.
It will soon be the same everywhere. Read the Instruction for
Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the
Eastern Churches. Rome has mandated that the Eastern churches return
to their roots -- and I am sure it will occur.
>>dsc...@panther.gsu.edu (Thomas Henry Whalen) said -- to a translation
>>error in the Latin version of the Creed.
>One of the denizens of 'occupied UseNet', perhaps
>(bit.listserv.catholic - meaning bit.listserv.militant.protestant)?
>Funny how some folks never seem to post where people can actually
>answer their pet theories and assertions? (oh, well) But, once again,
>the Greek understanding at Florence was not contrary to 'proceeds from
>Father and Son'. If you confess only, proceeds from The Father, by the
>omission it says what omissions in 'new order' say - it's not
>important, and it's not important to clarify the point in The Creed.
>And yet it was. And, clearly, and particularly for a few folk in New
>Jersey, nothing has changed, so twoud seem.
The only thing that has changed is that the Byzantine Catholics of
that eparchy will have their liturgical practices restored.
>>Thanx once again, Mark, for the opportunity to comment on your *grand*
>>theology.
>If I have said anything, here, it's only that of The Church, backed up
>by the saints and doctors, encylicals and bulls, council documents and
>whatever else; some of which you just ignored out of hand because I
>suppose they tended to reveal your arguments and assertions for just
>what they were. If you reject _my_ "grand theology", it's only The
>Church you reject. Unless you think I've written something other than
>that?
I reject nothing, Mark. I do not reject the Filioque -- it is part of
the theology of the West. It is you who rejects what the Church
teaches.
Joseph Davidchik
> Effective on Flowery Sunday, March 23, 1997 (known as Palm Sunday in
> the West) the Ruthenian Catholic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey,
> USofA, will no longer use the Filioque in its liturgy. At the same
> time, several other liturgical changes will be put into effect for the
> purpose of making the Ruthenian Catholic liturgy conform to the
> Orthodox usage.
I wish you wouldn't say "conform to the Orthodox usage." Maybe, to
conform to the original Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. All Orthodox
liturgies are not the same. The Orthodox rituals vary as with Catholics.
I have seen differences among and between the Russian and other Orthodox.
I think that the Ruthenian Catholic Church as well as other Greek Catholic
churches didn't have the filoque originally. However, these churches have
been in union with Rome since the 15th or 16th Century. There was no
requirement that they adopt the filoque for union.
There is a lot about the Greek Rite that most Catholics (most Christians)
don't know. So much of their history is wrapped up in nationalism and
power politics over the centuries. The Ruthenians, some Galicians, some
Belarusans, and Western Ukrainians tried to have their own religious
identity, but got squeezed by the Poles or Russians. For different
reasons, both sides happily tried to eliminate them. Most people don't
know that the majority of the populace of Belarus and the Western Ukraine
was Greek Catholic until the 18th Century.
Mike Davidchik
William M Klimon
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Joseph Davidchik wrote:
> There is a lot about the Greek Rite that most Catholics (most Christians)
> don't know. So much of their history is wrapped up in nationalism and
> power politics over the centuries. The Ruthenians, some Galicians, some
> Belarusans, and Western Ukrainians tried to have their own religious
> identity, but got squeezed by the Poles or Russians. For different
> reasons, both sides happily tried to eliminate them. Most people don't
> know that the majority of the populace of Belarus and the Western Ukraine
> was Greek Catholic until the 18th Century.
Or that the majority of non-Greek Orthodox in the U.S. are the descendents
of Ruthenian Catholics who broke communion with Rome around the turn of
the last century over some minor disciplinary and pastoral matters.
Pax.
WMK.
______________________________________________________________________________
William M. Klimon ("12") wkl...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
University of Maryland School of Law
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>Always a pleasure, Mark.
Of course, I think you are being sarcastic. Am I wrong?
>regard to the New Age Liturgy, I can only say that that is the way
>that the Roman church is going. It is you who insist on going your
>own way.
Then the fathers of Trent went their 'own way', long ago. What can I
say? You keep forgetting, perhaps, that Trent was normative for the
fathers of Vatican II, but apparently not so for Paul VI nor his
'consillium'.
>It is in the Western version of the Creed.
That is, the version not said in Passaic (NJ, US_of_A).
>>I hadn't realized that Eastern Catholicism spread no further than
>>Passaic, NJ, USA.
>
>It will soon be the same everywhere.
Don't hold your breath. Some Eastern Catholics really are, Eastern
Catholic, from what I understand.
>The only thing that has changed is that the Byzantine Catholics of
>that eparchy will have their liturgical practices restored.
What you mean is brought into conformance with the Schismatic Greek.
> I do not reject the Filioque
I don't know who you think you're kidding with that. Of course, you
do.
>It is you who rejects what the Church teaches.
Some in The Church appear to. Heresies have been with us, before, in
which you would have made the same complaint against Athanasius or
More, or whomever. But heresies don't last, and neither will this.
Peace.
BugDaddy
What a pleasure!
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>Always a pleasure, Mark.
>Of course, I think you are being sarcastic. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.
>>regard to the New Age Liturgy, I can only say that that is the way
>>that the Roman church is going. It is you who insist on going your
>>own way.
>Then the fathers of Trent went their 'own way', long ago. What can I
>say? You keep forgetting, perhaps, that Trent was normative for the
>fathers of Vatican II, but apparently not so for Paul VI nor his
>'consillium'.
The magisterium changes to meet the needs of each age. Trent did what
was needed then. The Second Vatican Council did what was needed now.
Some, it is true have misunderstood what the Sacred Council was trying
to accomplish, however.
>>It is in the Western version of the Creed.
>That is, the version not said in Passaic (NJ, US_of_A).
A negative "definition" really does not identify things sufficiently,
Mark. You should study logic a bit.
>>>I hadn't realized that Eastern Catholicism spread no further than
>>>Passaic, NJ, USA.
>>It will soon be the same everywhere.
>Don't hold your breath. Some Eastern Catholics really are, Eastern
>Catholic, from what I understand.
Yes, the Eparchy of Passaic is a perfect example of an Eastern
Catholic church. Others will no doubt become as catholic as is
Passaic.
>>The only thing that has changed is that the Byzantine Catholics of
>>that eparchy will have their liturgical practices restored.
>What you mean is brought into conformance with the Schismatic Greek.
No, brought to conform with what the Council of Florence said.
>> I do not reject the Filioque
>I don't know who you think you're kidding with that. Of course, you
>do.
No, when I attend the Divine Liturgy of Saint Pius V, I am glad to
pronounce it. It is part of the theology of the West and I can
respect it even as I respect that of the East.
>>It is you who rejects what the Church teaches.
>Some in The Church appear to. Heresies have been with us, before, in
>which you would have made the same complaint against Athanasius or
>More, or whomever. But heresies don't last, and neither will this.
I am not talking about *some." I am talking about you. You reject
the New Age liturgy.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>I objected to your throwing around these insults. I still do, if you
>>were to continue. And I don't know who you think you are convincing of
>>anything by playing Gracie Fields. She _was_ better at it, btw.
>
>But Mark, there is no reference to such.
But if you deny calling me, and other Catholics, names for reporting
out the words of the Church fathers and the words from Trent, for ex.,
then . . . let us agree, once again, to let others judge - shall we?
>No, Mark, you read it wrongly. They say that the Son sends the Holy
>Spirit. But that reference is not related to the Procession. You are
>mixing two fundamentally different matters.
They said the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, and The Father - as
in, proceeds from The Father and The Son; something you seem so much
to dislike, and yet seem unable or unwillingly to ask yourself, truly
- why that dislike?
>>And wish you didn't. That's what _you_ are forgetting, here.
>
>Well, Mark, after March 23, 1997, the Catholic Ruthenian church I
>attend will no longer use the Filioque.
What do you want me to say, again - bully for them? Let's all get
ecumenical? The Creed includes the passage, proceeds from The Father
and The Son. It's what Catholics believe. If the Ruthenian no longer
does, even just those from Passaic, NJ, US_of_A, draw you own
conclusions. You know what _my_ suspicions would be.
>>>For there are Super-Catholic fundamentalists
>
>>Again, for how many times it may be, I wish you would be honest and
>>answer the question - what do you mean by 'super' Catholic? It clearly
>>is intended as an insult. If you continue to be evasive in this, those
>>others you do not fear may well judge in a way you may not like.
>
>Here again, Mark,
I'm was asking you not to continue to be so evasive, in this - for
your sake, really, more than mine (understand that).
> I use the term super-Catholic to refer to Catholic fundamentalists.
And just what is a "Catholic fundamentalist", in _your_ dictionary?
>I object to your trying to interpret the Fathers of the East
A) I didn't misrepresent them, and B) _I_ object to your dismissing
out of hand the fathers you label as being western, in an Age, at the
time, of Christians, that is of Catholics, of a Church unified in
purpose and under the temporal authority of the Holy See; trying
always so desperately to wade the geo-political morass of the times.
>>But that's utter nonsense. To even suggest that Aquinas did not
>>understand Theophyl or Bede, for ex., is I think symptomatic of how
>>far one can go in pursuit of a poorly considered cause.
>
>I am sure he would have understood them, but not sure they would have
>understood him.
Well, I meant Theophylact, and the Venerable Bede most certainly would
have understood Aquinas, as Theophylact, since Aquinas would take
entire passages of theirs, intact, to provide commentary on Scripture.
>the Ruthenian Catolic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA,
Them, again. I see.
>>I would suspect it does. You don't seem to be thinking about any of
>>this very clearly. You consistently misunderstand simple reference and
>>basic syntax, as it is. I suggest it has to do with worldly ambitions.
>>Let others judge. You've confessed no objection to such.
>
>Here again, you call upon the masses
No, just you. You're the only one who's gotten so much that is so
simple, so wrong. You deny it?
>>That wasn't the question. You really don't have an answer perhaps
>>because you really had nothing to complain about, in the first place?
>>What was introduced, then, that you consider to be such a 'shame'?
>
>It was a shame that the Eastern churches were Romanized.
It's a shame they prefer the Greek, rather than The Church, in my
opinion - if your group, or your movement, is representative.
>>Which means what to you? That a married clergy ought to be the norm
>>against anything The Church might say, were it healthy and not in the
>>grip of heresy? I'm not sure you have a point with this, unless it is
>>this word 'contempt' that bothers you; and if no reason was given, it
>>_would_ seem to reflect an absence of charity, perhaps.
>
>The Eastern churches have always had a married clergy. Who are you to
>call them heretical, when the Roman church does not?
I just can't imagine how many glasses of wine you ingest before
tossing off these notes? I mean, my reference was clearly to The
Church - which I'll recall for you means, The Roman, Catholic and
Universal Church, The Church Militant, founded by Our Lord upon St.
Peter, who went to Rome. There is heresy afoot, as I have like to say
(lo, these many years, so it sometimes seems).
>Bishop Ireland's contempt for the Eastern churches would denote some
>lack of charity.
I'm beginning to wonder, at least about _some_ of the 'Eastern
Catholic', given all the wonderful news we've heard from you, for ex.
>>It isn't about the Greek or the Eastern Catholic, is it? It's about
>>married clergy in the dioceses and in the old saintly orders, and the
>
>The pope could change the practice of the West over night
No more than he had the right to abolish the Mass in favor of 'new
order'. The Pope must abide by the Magisterium. Where he does not, he
exceeds his authority. Simple. _He_ is not the standard. No Pope has,
yet, formally and officially declared that he is. Yet he _is_ the
Pope, nonetheless, however bloodthirsty (in the distant past), however
corrupt, however deluded and misguided, however weak, and requires our
prayers that he turn away from the temptations of the world, and the
soothing words of some anti-christ in the flowing white robes, and
toward the simple and everlasting things of God.
>>I understand that the Greek Orthodox, if that is now your reference,
>>was essentially an official state church and controlled by the KGB. Do
>>you believe otherwise?
>
>No, I suspect that they were controlled by the KGB.
Hard to believe we agree on something, at this point. I'm glad for it.
>>But what could you imagine it to mean?
>
>Mark, you don't even know what you mean yourself.
Given that you are continuing to be evasive, and simply won't answer
such a simple question as that asked, here, let me just say that,
please, trust me when I tell you this - I take my time to reply, and
_do_ consider the words of anyone to whom I make that reply. Just
because I don't play _their_ game, doesn't mean I'm not reading what's
on the screen. Perhaps I'm trying to help in a way that isn't
anticipated, is all, or welcome, hopefully only at first.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>I objected to your throwing around these insults. I still do, if you
>>were to continue. And I don't know who you think you are convincing of
>>anything by playing Gracie Fields. She _was_ better at it, btw.
>
>But Mark, there is no reference to such.
But if you deny calling me, and other Catholics, names for reporting
out the words of the Church fathers and the words from Trent, for ex.,
then . . . let us agree, once again, to let others judge - shall we?
>No, Mark, you read it wrongly. They say that the Son sends the Holy
>Spirit. But that reference is not related to the Procession. You are
>mixing two fundamentally different matters.
They said the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, and The Father - as
in, proceeds from The Father and The Son; something you seem so much
to dislike, and yet seem unable or unwillingly to ask yourself, truly
- why that dislike?
>>And wish you didn't. That's what _you_ are forgetting, here.
>
>Well, Mark, after March 23, 1997, the Catholic Ruthenian church I
>attend will no longer use the Filioque.
What do you want me to say, again - bully for them? Let's all get
ecumenical? The Creed includes the passage, proceeds from The Father
and The Son. It's what Catholics believe. If the Ruthenian no longer
does, even just those from Passaic, NJ, US_of_A, draw you own
conclusions. You know what _my_ suspicions would be.
>>>For there are Super-Catholic fundamentalists
>
>>Again, for how many times it may be, I wish you would be honest and
>>answer the question - what do you mean by 'super' Catholic? It clearly
>>is intended as an insult. If you continue to be evasive in this, those
>>others you do not fear may well judge in a way you may not like.
>
>Here again, Mark,
I'm was asking you not to continue to be so evasive, in this - for
your sake, really, more than mine (understand that).
> I use the term super-Catholic to refer to Catholic fundamentalists.
And just what is a "Catholic fundamentalist", in _your_ dictionary?
>I object to your trying to interpret the Fathers of the East
A) I didn't misrepresent them, and B) _I_ object to your dismissing
out of hand the fathers you label as being western, in an Age, at the
time, of Christians, that is of Catholics, of a Church unified in
purpose and under the temporal authority of the Holy See; trying
always so desperately to wade the geo-political morass of the times.
>>But that's utter nonsense. To even suggest that Aquinas did not
>>understand Theophyl or Bede, for ex., is I think symptomatic of how
>>far one can go in pursuit of a poorly considered cause.
>
>I am sure he would have understood them, but not sure they would have
>understood him.
Well, I meant Theophylact, and the Venerable Bede most certainly would
have understood Aquinas, as Theophylact, since Aquinas would take
entire passages of theirs, intact, to provide commentary on Scripture.
>the Ruthenian Catolic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA,
Them, again. I see.
>>I would suspect it does. You don't seem to be thinking about any of
>>this very clearly. You consistently misunderstand simple reference and
>>basic syntax, as it is. I suggest it has to do with worldly ambitions.
>>Let others judge. You've confessed no objection to such.
>
>Here again, you call upon the masses
No, just you. You're the only one who's gotten so much that is so
simple, so wrong. You deny it?
>>That wasn't the question. You really don't have an answer perhaps
>>because you really had nothing to complain about, in the first place?
>>What was introduced, then, that you consider to be such a 'shame'?
>
>It was a shame that the Eastern churches were Romanized.
It's a shame they prefer the Greek, rather than The Church, in my
opinion - if your group, or your movement, is representative.
>>Which means what to you? That a married clergy ought to be the norm
>>against anything The Church might say, were it healthy and not in the
>>grip of heresy? I'm not sure you have a point with this, unless it is
>>this word 'contempt' that bothers you; and if no reason was given, it
>>_would_ seem to reflect an absence of charity, perhaps.
>
>The Eastern churches have always had a married clergy. Who are you to
>call them heretical, when the Roman church does not?
I just can't imagine how many glasses of wine you ingest before
tossing off these notes? I mean, my reference was clearly to The
Church - which I'll recall for you means, The Roman, Catholic and
Universal Church, The Church Militant, founded by Our Lord upon St.
Peter, who went to Rome. There is heresy afoot, as I have like to say
(lo, these many years, so it sometimes seems).
>Bishop Ireland's contempt for the Eastern churches would denote some
>lack of charity.
I'm beginning to wonder, at least about _some_ of the 'Eastern
Catholic', given all the wonderful news we've heard from you, for ex.
>>It isn't about the Greek or the Eastern Catholic, is it? It's about
>>married clergy in the dioceses and in the old saintly orders, and the
>
>The pope could change the practice of the West over night
No more than he had the right to abolish the Mass in favor of 'new
order'. The Pope must abide by the Magisterium. Where he does not, he
exceeds his authority. Simple. _He_ is not the standard. No Pope has,
yet, formally and officially declared that he is. Yet he _is_ the
Pope, nonetheless, however bloodthirsty (in the distant past), however
corrupt, however deluded and misguided, however weak, and requires our
prayers that he turn away from the temptations of the world, and the
soothing words of some anti-christ in the flowing white robes, and
toward the simple and everlasting things of God.
>>I understand that the Greek Orthodox, if that is now your reference,
>>was essentially an official state church and controlled by the KGB. Do
>>you believe otherwise?
>
>No, I suspect that they were controlled by the KGB.
Hard to believe we agree on something, at this point. I'm glad for it.
>>But what could you imagine it to mean?
>
>Mark, you don't even know what you mean yourself.
Given that you are continuing to be evasive, and simply won't answer
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>I objected to your throwing around these insults. I still do, if you
>>were to continue. And I don't know who you think you are convincing of
>>anything by playing Gracie Fields. She _was_ better at it, btw.
>
>But Mark, there is no reference to such.
But if you deny calling me, and other Catholics, names for reporting
out the words of the Church fathers and the words from Trent, for ex.,
then . . . let us agree, once again, to let others judge - shall we?
>No, Mark, you read it wrongly. They say that the Son sends the Holy
>Spirit. But that reference is not related to the Procession. You are
>mixing two fundamentally different matters.
They said the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, and The Father - as
in, proceeds from The Father and The Son; something you seem so much
to dislike, and yet seem unable or unwillingly to ask yourself, truly
- why that dislike?
>>And wish you didn't. That's what _you_ are forgetting, here.
>
>Well, Mark, after March 23, 1997, the Catholic Ruthenian church I
>attend will no longer use the Filioque.
What do you want me to say, again - bully for them? Let's all get
ecumenical? The Creed includes the passage, proceeds from The Father
and The Son. It's what Catholics believe. If the Ruthenian no longer
does, even just those from Passaic, NJ, US_of_A, draw you own
conclusions. You know what _my_ suspicions would be.
>>>For there are Super-Catholic fundamentalists
>
>>Again, for how many times it may be, I wish you would be honest and
>>answer the question - what do you mean by 'super' Catholic? It clearly
>>is intended as an insult. If you continue to be evasive in this, those
>>others you do not fear may well judge in a way you may not like.
>
>Here again, Mark,
I'm was asking you not to continue to be so evasive, in this - for
your sake, really, more than mine (understand that).
> I use the term super-Catholic to refer to Catholic fundamentalists.
And just what is a "Catholic fundamentalist", in _your_ dictionary?
>I object to your trying to interpret the Fathers of the East
A) I didn't misrepresent them, and B) _I_ object to your dismissing
out of hand the fathers you label as being western, in an Age, at the
time, of Christians, that is of Catholics, of a Church unified in
purpose and under the temporal authority of the Holy See; trying
always so desperately to wade the geo-political morass of the times.
>>But that's utter nonsense. To even suggest that Aquinas did not
>>understand Theophyl or Bede, for ex., is I think symptomatic of how
>>far one can go in pursuit of a poorly considered cause.
>
>I am sure he would have understood them, but not sure they would have
>understood him.
Well, I meant Theophylact, and the Venerable Bede most certainly would
have understood Aquinas, as Theophylact, since Aquinas would take
entire passages of theirs, intact, to provide commentary on Scripture.
>the Ruthenian Catolic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA,
Them, again. I see.
>>I would suspect it does. You don't seem to be thinking about any of
>>this very clearly. You consistently misunderstand simple reference and
>>basic syntax, as it is. I suggest it has to do with worldly ambitions.
>>Let others judge. You've confessed no objection to such.
>
>Here again, you call upon the masses
No, just you. You're the only one who's gotten so much that is so
simple, so wrong. You deny it?
>>That wasn't the question. You really don't have an answer perhaps
>>because you really had nothing to complain about, in the first place?
>>What was introduced, then, that you consider to be such a 'shame'?
>
>It was a shame that the Eastern churches were Romanized.
It's a shame they prefer the Greek, rather than The Church, in my
opinion - if your group, or your movement, is representative.
>>Which means what to you? That a married clergy ought to be the norm
>>against anything The Church might say, were it healthy and not in the
>>grip of heresy? I'm not sure you have a point with this, unless it is
>>this word 'contempt' that bothers you; and if no reason was given, it
>>_would_ seem to reflect an absence of charity, perhaps.
>
>The Eastern churches have always had a married clergy. Who are you to
>call them heretical, when the Roman church does not?
I just can't imagine how many glasses of wine you ingest before
tossing off these notes? I mean, my reference was clearly to The
Church - which I'll recall for you means, The Roman, Catholic and
Universal Church, The Church Militant, founded by Our Lord upon St.
Peter, who went to Rome. There is heresy afoot, as I have like to say
(lo, these many years, so it sometimes seems).
>Bishop Ireland's contempt for the Eastern churches would denote some
>lack of charity.
I'm beginning to wonder, at least about _some_ of the 'Eastern
Catholic', given all the wonderful news we've heard from you, for ex.
>>It isn't about the Greek or the Eastern Catholic, is it? It's about
>>married clergy in the dioceses and in the old saintly orders, and the
>
>The pope could change the practice of the West over night
No more than he had the right to abolish the Mass in favor of 'new
order'. The Pope must abide by the Magisterium. Where he does not, he
exceeds his authority. Simple. _He_ is not the standard. No Pope has,
yet, formally and officially declared that he is. Yet he _is_ the
Pope, nonetheless, however bloodthirsty (in the distant past), however
corrupt, however deluded and misguided, however weak, and requires our
prayers that he turn away from the temptations of the world, and the
soothing words of some anti-christ in the flowing white robes, and
toward the simple and everlasting things of God.
>>I understand that the Greek Orthodox, if that is now your reference,
>>was essentially an official state church and controlled by the KGB. Do
>>you believe otherwise?
>
>No, I suspect that they were controlled by the KGB.
Hard to believe we agree on something, at this point. I'm glad for it.
>>But what could you imagine it to mean?
>
>Mark, you don't even know what you mean yourself.
Given that you are continuing to be evasive, and simply won't answer
BugDaddy
davi...@oro.net (Joseph Davidchik) wrote:
>In article <331ac5ae...@news.cris.com>, BugD...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> Effective on Flowery Sunday, March 23, 1997 (known as Palm Sunday in
>> the West) the Ruthenian Catholic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey,
>> USofA, will no longer use the Filioque in its liturgy. At the same
>> time, several other liturgical changes will be put into effect for the
>> purpose of making the Ruthenian Catholic liturgy conform to the
>> Orthodox usage.
>
>I wish you wouldn't say "conform to the Orthodox usage."
I generally call a spade a spade. Read the "Instruction for Applying
the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches," issued by the Roman Congregation for the Eastern Churches
on January 6, 1996. There you will see that Ecumenism is recognized
by the Roman church as an important objective with regard to
liturgical practice.
>Maybe, to conform to the original Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.
Yes, except that the changes go beyond the Divine Liturgy of Saint
John Chrysostom. Indeed, from what our priest has told us, the
liturgy is not going to change very much. There are, however, major
changes to the Presanctified Liturgy and to the rite of Baptism --
from what I understand, Baptism by Immersion will become the norm,
although it will not be required where it is not practical.
>All Orthodox liturgies are not the same. The Orthodox rituals vary
>as with Catholics. I have seen differences among and between the
>Russian and other Orthodox.
Certainly the Melkites are very different from the Ruthenian church.
Technically, I could have added the qualifier Ruthenian/Ukranian to
the statement I made. Nevertheless, I believe that the statement I
made was reasonably correct.
>I think that the Ruthenian Catholic Church as well as other Greek Catholic
>churches didn't have the filoque originally. However, these churches have
>been in union with Rome since the 15th or 16th Century. There was no
>requirement that they adopt the filoque for union.
It is my understanding that they did not. I suspect that it seemed to
be Politically Correct to add it at the time it was done.
>There is a lot about the Greek Rite that most Catholics (most Christians)
>don't know. So much of their history is wrapped up in nationalism and
>power politics over the centuries. The Ruthenians, some Galicians, some
>Belarusans, and Western Ukrainians tried to have their own religious
>identity, but got squeezed by the Poles or Russians. For different
>reasons, both sides happily tried to eliminate them. Most people don't
>know that the majority of the populace of Belarus and the Western Ukraine
>was Greek Catholic until the 18th Century.
Yes -- and they can't agree with each other. The Ruthenians and
Ukrainians apparently disliked each other so much that they demanded
that their church be divided. And so the Vatican established separate
jurisdictions for them in the USofA. Even today, the Ukrainians
always want to wave the Ukrainian flag -- while Ruthenians just want
to be left alone. (Such is my personal opinion -- though others may
disagree.)
BugDaddy
Greetings, Brother Mark!
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>But Mark, there is no reference to such.
>But if you deny calling me, and other Catholics, names for reporting
>out the words of the Church fathers and the words from Trent, for ex.,
>then . . . let us agree, once again, to let others judge - shall we?
I deny nothing, Mark. You keep complaining about these matters,
though I have tried to make it clear the warmth of my feelings toward
you. (Which you interpret as sarcasm.)
Yet you deny what the Church teaches. I urge you to name even a
single active bishop of the Roman church who says that the New Age
Liturgy is invalid. You may, of course name retired bishops who agree
with you. I mean, however, a bishop currently holding ordinary
authority over a diocese. Is there even one who agrees with you?
>>No, Mark, you read it wrongly. They say that the Son sends the Holy
>>Spirit. But that reference is not related to the Procession. You are
>>mixing two fundamentally different matters.
>They said the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, and The Father - as
>in, proceeds from The Father and The Son; something you seem so much
>to dislike, and yet seem unable or unwillingly to ask yourself, truly
>- why that dislike?
No, I think that they agreed that the Filioque is a point of Western
theology, as I have told you many times.
>>Well, Mark, after March 23, 1997, the Catholic Ruthenian church I
>>attend will no longer use the Filioque.
>What do you want me to say, again - bully for them? Let's all get
>ecumenical? The Creed includes the passage, proceeds from The Father
>and The Son. It's what Catholics believe. If the Ruthenian no longer
>does, even just those from Passaic, NJ, US_of_A, draw you own
>conclusions. You know what _my_ suspicions would be.
No, I do not know your suspicions. How can I. I am not you. I do
not think your thoughts.
>>Here again, Mark,
>I'm was asking you not to continue to be so evasive, in this - for
>your sake, really, more than mine (understand that).
What am I evasive about. Personally, I call a spade a spade.
>> I use the term super-Catholic to refer to Catholic fundamentalists.
>And just what is a "Catholic fundamentalist", in _your_ dictionary?
One who thinks he is more Catholic than the pope.
>>I object to your trying to interpret the Fathers of the East
>A) I didn't misrepresent them,
You just don't understand them.
>and B) _I_ object to your dismissing
>out of hand the fathers you label as being western, in an Age, at the
>time, of Christians, that is of Catholics, of a Church unified in
>purpose and under the temporal authority of the Holy See; trying
>always so desperately to wade the geo-political morass of the times.
I do not dismiss the Fathers of the Western church. I have no
interest, however, in them. Just as you have no interest in the East.
>>I am sure he would have understood them, but not sure they would have
>>understood him.
>Well, I meant Theophylact, and the Venerable Bede most certainly would
>have understood Aquinas, as Theophylact, since Aquinas would take
>entire passages of theirs, intact, to provide commentary on Scripture.
Yes, Aquinas did quote other people from time to time. That shows
that Aquinas may have understood what they wrote. It says nothing
about whether they would have understood him.
>>the Ruthenian Catolic eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey, USofA,
>Them, again. I see.
Always.
>>Here again, you call upon the masses
>No, just you. You're the only one who's gotten so much that is so
>simple, so wrong. You deny it?
Of course I deny it. However, that is not the point. You call upon
the masses because you imagine that you represent the masses.
>>It was a shame that the Eastern churches were Romanized.
>It's a shame they prefer the Greek, rather than The Church, in my
>opinion - if your group, or your movement, is representative.
I do not understand. Would you please be a little less evasive?
>>The Eastern churches have always had a married clergy. Who are you to
>>call them heretical, when the Roman church does not?
>I just can't imagine how many glasses of wine you ingest before
>tossing off these notes? I mean, my reference was clearly to The
>Church - which I'll recall for you means, The Roman, Catholic and
>Universal Church, The Church Militant, founded by Our Lord upon St.
>Peter, who went to Rome. There is heresy afoot, as I have like to say
>(lo, these many years, so it sometimes seems).
Yes, but the Eastern churches have always had a married clergy. Why
do you deny it? And why are you so evasive about it?
>>Bishop Ireland's contempt for the Eastern churches would denote some
>>lack of charity.
>I'm beginning to wonder, at least about _some_ of the 'Eastern
>Catholic', given all the wonderful news we've heard from you, for ex.
Then read the "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions
of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches," issued by the Roman
Congregation for the Eastern Churches on January 6, 1996. There you
will see that they are doing what Rome has commanded.
>>The pope could change the practice of the West over night
>No more than he had the right to abolish the Mass in favor of 'new
>order'. The Pope must abide by the Magisterium. Where he does not, he
>exceeds his authority. Simple. _He_ is not the standard. No Pope has,
>yet, formally and officially declared that he is. Yet he _is_ the
>Pope, nonetheless, however bloodthirsty (in the distant past), however
>corrupt, however deluded and misguided, however weak, and requires our
>prayers that he turn away from the temptations of the world, and the
>soothing words of some anti-christ in the flowing white robes, and
>toward the simple and everlasting things of God.
He has all the authority he needs or wants over the Church. It is
silly for you to talk about his exceeding his authority. The pope is
the standard by which the exercise of his authority is to be judged.
>>No, I suspect that they were controlled by the KGB.
>Hard to believe we agree on something, at this point. I'm glad for it.
I think we agree about much.
>>Mark, you don't even know what you mean yourself.
>Given that you are continuing to be evasive, and simply won't answer
>such a simple question as that asked, here, let me just say that,
>please, trust me when I tell you this - I take my time to reply, and
>_do_ consider the words of anyone to whom I make that reply. Just
>because I don't play _their_ game, doesn't mean I'm not reading what's
>on the screen. Perhaps I'm trying to help in a way that isn't
>anticipated, is all, or welcome, hopefully only at first.
Unfortunately, Mark, with your grand theology, you never ask a simple
question. For you always chase after non-sequitors. When I point out
these matters, you simply stonewall. Remember all the quotes from
Aquinas which I carefully typed up and which you totally ignorred,
because they did not fit into your grand theology? I quote the
Western Doctor of Doctors and you accuse me of being hostile to the
West. What nonsense!
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>> I use the term super-Catholic to refer to Catholic fundamentalists.
>>And just what is a "Catholic fundamentalist", in _your_ dictionary?
>
>One who thinks he is more Catholic than the pope.
But how does one actually do that, specifically?
>>>I object to your trying to interpret the Fathers of the East
>>A) I didn't misrepresent them,
>
>You just don't understand them.
I didn't misrepresent them. I think you simply did not like what they
had to say, over the span of so many centuries.
>>and B) _I_ object to your dismissing
>>out of hand the fathers you label as being western, in an Age, at the
>>time, of Christians, that is of Catholics, of a Church unified in
>>purpose and under the temporal authority of the Holy See; trying
>>always so desperately to wade the geo-political morass of the times.
>
>I do not dismiss the Fathers of the Western church. I have no
>interest, however, in them. Just as you have no interest in the East.
That's simply not true. The Eastern Fathers and Western Fathers,
so-called now in retrospect, were entirely Catholic. The Church is
eastern, as well as western. It could not be universal and be anything
less. Some of the eastern fathers are still listed as saints. One is
to consider their words. Their writings were used as a basis for
commentary and theology by 'western' fathers and doctors. It was all,
and they were part of, the One, True Church. I simply don't understand
your comment, and tell you it is not true.
>>Well, I meant Theophylact, and the Venerable Bede most certainly would
>>have understood Aquinas, as Theophylact, since Aquinas would take
>>entire passages of theirs, intact, to provide commentary on Scripture.
>
>Yes, Aquinas did quote other people from time to time. That shows
>that Aquinas may have understood what they wrote. It says nothing
>about whether they would have understood him.
Again, it was their very words he quoted. You suggest they could not
have understood themselves.
>You call upon
>the masses because you imagine that you represent the masses.
With respect, Bill, you _must_ be kidding. There isn't anyone who gets
more the sense they are living in the enemy's camp than a Catholic.
>read the "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions
>of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches," issued by the Roman
>Congregation for the Eastern Churches on January 6, 1996.
Do you have the URL? (or does that apply?)
>He has all the authority he needs or wants over the Church. It is
>silly for you to talk about his exceeding his authority. The pope is
>the standard by which the exercise of his authority is to be judged.
I doubt he would agree with you.
>>Hard to believe we agree on something, at this point. I'm glad for it.
>
>I think we agree about much.
The sad thing, of course, is that Catholics agreed with the Muslims
during the height of the Dark Ages, and that Catholics and Protestants
agreed on much during the wars of recent centuries. Sides that agree
can also violently disagree; particularly when they otherwise agree on
quite a lot. One might suggest the Greek Orthodox and Catholic agree
on many things, as well.
>Remember all the quotes from
>Aquinas which I carefully typed up and which you totally ignorred,
No, I don't remember seeing those in one of your posts.
>you accuse me of being hostile to the West. What nonsense!
Which is to say I quote the eastern fathers and you accuse me of all
that _you_ have. I didn't suggest you seem to find fault with the
'west' over the filioque, married clergy, and whatever else. I
suggested your difficulty was with The Church, Universal - The Roman
Catholic Church.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>
>>>Always a pleasure, Mark.
>>Of course, I think you are being sarcastic. Am I wrong?
>
>Yes, you are wrong.
Supposing, here, I'll just have to trust you, on this.
>>You keep forgetting, perhaps, that Trent was normative for the
>>fathers of Vatican II, but apparently not so for Paul VI nor his
>>'consillium'.
>
>The magisterium changes to meet the needs of each age. Trent did what
>was needed then. The Second Vatican Council did what was needed now.
I don't believe that's the case. The 'spirit of Vatican II' produced
something at odds with the stated intentions, as muddled in places as
they may admittedly have been, of the fathers of the council. There
are those who quarrel with a couple of the documents. I find some
confusing, contradictory and misleading, myself. Von Hildebrand was of
the opinion that unless they reaffirmed the existing Magisterium, they
had no force; and I would suspect he would have known what he was
talking about.
>Some, it is true have misunderstood what the Sacred Council was trying
>to accomplish, however.
Some in high places, and 'some' who continue to follow and not lead,
to remain silent and even pietistic, perhaps, in the belief that it
'will all work out', in some dehumanized fashion devoid of action and
personal responsibility - that is by the philosophy, stuff happens,
not that people cause things to change, and for the better. On the
other hand, even His Holiness may feel powerless to act, and afraid of
creating some open schism in The Church should he attempt to act
beyond the margins of removing this bishop or that who has moved into
almost open defiance of the Magisterium or the Holy See. The Pope
needs our prayers. The world just seems to be getting bolder and
colder by the day.
>>>>I hadn't realized that Eastern Catholicism spread no further than
>>>>Passaic, NJ, USA.
>
>>>It will soon be the same everywhere.
>
>>Don't hold your breath. Some Eastern Catholics really are, Eastern
>>Catholic, from what I understand.
>
>Yes, the Eparchy of Passaic is a perfect example
I disagree. The Creed may have been 'expanded' as you might prefer to
say, perhaps in an impolitic fashion toward the Greek. But the point
of it is to help cement the universal Church, so that whatever
liturgy, Catholics can be assured of a common understanding with all
outwardingly confessing the true Faith. Break from that Creed, and I
would think it speaks volumes about ones fidelity to The Church. This
is not then. And, what's more, if I'm not mistaken, even on occasion
_you_ have admitted the truth of 'proceeds from Father and Son', which
you say you confess with no difficulty. If so, then what is true for
one Catholic, is true for all, or it isn't true. Some things go to
cultural variations, and different ways of doing and saying the same
thing. There is, if you will, a sort of diversity based on a unified
understanding and purpose. But the filioque goes directly to what we
understand, not so much how it is expressed, as I suppose the Greek
would insist. If His Holiness has made of point of omitting the
filioque in Greek liturgies, perhaps he might explain this by a
mistaken notion of 'ecumenism', but might, also, expect to be defended
by the argument that the Greek in schism can pretty much write it as
they will, since they are _not_ Catholic, but were (and could be once
more).
>Others will no doubt become as catholic as is Passaic.
Is the small "c" intentional, or simply a typo?
>You reject the New Age liturgy.
And I think for good reason. I've put down some thoughts on what
appears to be the fatal error in the new words of the consecration at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you are interested.
Peace.
Mark Hartman
In article <3322a14e...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>You reject the New Age liturgy.
>
>And I think for good reason. I've put down some thoughts on what
>appears to be the fatal error in the new words of the consecration at
>http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you are interested.
I, for one, am not. The Novus Ordo has been promulgated by the Church, and
comes under the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium. No matter whom
you quote who doesn't like it, what the Church says in this matter is the
rule for it.
Christ is made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no matter which
approved Liturgy (Tridentine, Novus Ordo, Divine Litury, etc.) is used; no
one who wants to retain a right to use the term "Catholic" may reject the
validity of any of them.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Wintel is to Mac as an Iraqi T-72 tank is to an M1A1 tank. --Tom Clancy
BugDaddy
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <3322a14e...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>>You reject the New Age liturgy.
>>And I think for good reason. I've put down some thoughts on what
>>appears to be the fatal error in the new words of the consecration at
>>http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you are interested.
>I, for one, am not. The Novus Ordo has been promulgated by the Church, and
>comes under the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium. No matter whom
>you quote who doesn't like it, what the Church says in this matter is the
>rule for it.
>Christ is made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no matter which
>approved Liturgy (Tridentine, Novus Ordo, Divine Litury, etc.) is used; no
>one who wants to retain a right to use the term "Catholic" may reject the
>validity of any of them.
Thanx, Mark (Mark Hartman, that is...). I thought I was the only one
who cared about such claims. At least there is something we agree on.
Mark Johnson
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>Christ is made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
Agreed, but it begs the question.
>no matter which approved Liturgy (Tridentine, Novus Ordo, Divine Litury, etc.) is used; no
>one who wants to retain a right to use the term "Catholic" may reject the
>validity of any of them.
Let's say the Pope decides to promulgate a liturgy in which the sense
is given that The Eucharist is a memorial, alone, not anything changed
in substance. Approved or no, wouldn't you think that a line no Pope
has the authority to cross? Or would you suggest the Pope is somehow
above the Magisterium, and is a law unto himself? or the bishops or
cardinals for that matter? There is a standard to be used in these
matters. And no Pope, that I know of, would agree that he has the
power to do just anything he pleases, and particularly with regard to
The Mass (Paul VI, after all, based his 'new order' on the same sense
as that of Trent, vaguely claiming the same methods and proper
scholarship were used, and that it was precisely as demanded by the
council of Vatican II - and yet . . . ).
Peace.
Mark Hartman
>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
>>Christ is made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
>
>Agreed, but it begs the question.
No, it doesn't, as I point out in the next phrase of the same sentence,
which you quote below.
>>no matter which approved Liturgy (Tridentine, Novus Ordo, Divine Litury,
>>etc.) is used; no one who wants to retain a right to use the term "Catholic"
>>may reject the validity of any of them.
>
>Let's say the Pope decides to promulgate a liturgy in which the sense
>is given that The Eucharist is a memorial, alone, not anything changed
>in substance. Approved or no, wouldn't you think that a line no Pope
>has the authority to cross? Or would you suggest the Pope is somehow
>above the Magisterium, and is a law unto himself? or the bishops or
>cardinals for that matter? There is a standard to be used in these
>matters.
And, apparently, you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of whether this
standard is met.
In your shoes, Mark, I think I'd be well-advised to go look up the definition
of the word "humility."
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
It's not how powerful the computer is; it's how powerful it makes you.
Mark Hartman
In article <5g50rq$fom$1...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gmc...@ibm.net wrote:
>And it takes a humble man to give that advice?
>
>Gerry
>
>In <mh-110397...@192.168.1.1>, m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com
(Mark Hartman) writes:
>>In your shoes, Mark, I think I'd be well-advised to go look up the definition
>>of the word "humility."
It's a well-worn page in my dictionary, I assure you. I'm downright PROUD
of my humility! :)
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Do it right the first time. Macintosh.
gmc...@ibm.net
And it takes a humble man to give that advice?
Gerry
In <mh-110397...@192.168.1.1>, m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) writes:
>In your shoes, Mark, I think I'd be well-advised to go look up the definition
>of the word "humility."
Gerry McAuliffe
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>Let's say the Pope decides to promulgate a liturgy in which the sense
>is given that The Eucharist is a memorial, alone, not anything changed
>in substance. Approved or no, wouldn't you think that a line no Pope
>has the authority to cross? Or would you suggest the Pope is somehow
>above the Magisterium, and is a law unto himself? or the bishops or
>cardinals for that matter? There is a standard to be used in these
>matters. And no Pope, that I know of, would agree that he has the
>power to do just anything he pleases, and particularly with regard to
>The Mass (Paul VI, after all, based his 'new order' on the same sense
>as that of Trent, vaguely claiming the same methods and proper
>scholarship were used, and that it was precisely as demanded by the
>council of Vatican II - and yet . . . ).
I would say, Mark, that Canon Law makes it clear that the Bishop of
Rome can do whatever he wants without being held responsible to anyone
else. In fact, Canon Law expressly excommunicates anyone who tries to
appeal a decision of the Bishop of Rome to a General Council.
I think that freedom of his to act as he pleases is implied by the
whole idea of infallibility. If the Bishop of Rome is infallible then
there is no substance to whatever you are trying to assert.
the ROYster-Meister
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, BugDaddy wrote:
> . . . .
>
> I would say, Mark, that Canon Law makes it clear that the Bishop of
> Rome can do whatever he wants without being held responsible to anyone
> else. In fact, Canon Law expressly excommunicates anyone who tries to
> appeal a decision of the Bishop of Rome to a General Council.
>
This is precisely the error of the Roman Papacy. Given: that
when Christ told Peter He gave him the keys to the kingdom, He was
essentially appointing Peter to be "Prime Minister" after His ascension.
Assumed: that the Bishop of Rome is the proper successor to Peter.
These do not grant authority higher than a general council. A Prime
Minister is no prince, to make decrees, but first among equals, who is
not to act apart from them.
Since, clearly, one of the other equals (Paul) quite properly
rebuked the original Peter, because Peter was in error, Peter's successor
is no less subject to rebuke. And since all the bishops are the heirs of
the apostles, a general council may therefore rebuke and correct a Roman
Pope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- the ROYster-meister + wil...@Peak.org --
one of God's >peculiar< people
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, God's peculiar people."
-- the Apostle Peter (KJV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Vieira
the ROYster-Meister <wil...@PEAK.ORG> wrote:
: Since, clearly, one of the other equals (Paul) quite properly
: rebuked the original Peter, because Peter was in error, Peter's successor
: is no less subject to rebuke. And since all the bishops are the heirs of
: the apostles, a general council may therefore rebuke and correct a Roman
: Pope.
What Paul was rebuking Peter for was his being hypocritical -- he was
preaching to the Gentiles but didn't want to eat with them. This was not
a theological issue, but a personal one. He was not in error concerning
his position as the head of the Apostalate.
Is the Pope subject to rebuke? If it could be shown that he was teaching
heretical doctrine of course he could. Other than that, he is the head of
the Church, and his teaching through the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
Dan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Vieira | dvi...@primenet.com | dsv2...@huey.csun.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "He doesn't want anything.....he's insane." |
| --Frank Black, from "Millennium" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hartman
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.970312210736.22353F-100000@kira>, the
ROYster-Meister <wil...@PEAK.ORG> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, BugDaddy wrote:
>
>> . . . .
>>
>> I would say, Mark, that Canon Law makes it clear that the Bishop of
>> Rome can do whatever he wants without being held responsible to anyone
>> else. In fact, Canon Law expressly excommunicates anyone who tries to
>> appeal a decision of the Bishop of Rome to a General Council.
>>
> This is precisely the error of the Roman Papacy. Given: that
>when Christ told Peter He gave him the keys to the kingdom, He was
>essentially appointing Peter to be "Prime Minister" after His ascension.
>Assumed: that the Bishop of Rome is the proper successor to Peter.
>These do not grant authority higher than a general council. A Prime
>Minister is no prince, to make decrees, but first among equals, who is
>not to act apart from them.
> Since, clearly, one of the other equals (Paul) quite properly
>rebuked the original Peter, because Peter was in error, Peter's successor
>is no less subject to rebuke. And since all the bishops are the heirs of
>the apostles, a general council may therefore rebuke and correct a Roman
>Pope.
Quite simply: wrong.
Peter and his successors are not the "prime minister;" they are the "viceroy."
A viceroy does indeed rule, subject to general and specific guidance from the
king. A prime minister is never told "what you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven; what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Paul rebuked Peter because Peter _personally_ was in error; when Peter
spoke as Pope, he did not commit the same error.
The primacy of Peter and his successors is the supreme authority within the
Church, not subject to any other authority including that of any sort of
council, and this is an article of faith for Catholics; if you hold a
differing point of view, you're not a Catholic, regardless of what you
call yourself.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Work smarter. Work faster. Work better. Work easier. Macintosh.
Mark Johnson
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <332525a4...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>>
>>Let's say the Pope decides to promulgate a liturgy in which the sense
>>is given that The Eucharist is a memorial, alone, not anything changed
>>in substance. Approved or no, wouldn't you think that a line no Pope
>>has the authority to cross? Or would you suggest the Pope is somehow
>>above the Magisterium, and is a law unto himself? or the bishops or
>>cardinals for that matter? There is a standard to be used in these
>>matters.
>
>And, apparently, you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of whether this
>standard is met.
Then you are suggesting a false pluralism or pietism, or clericalism,
instead? Do you suggest that where a Catholic sees something that runs
against the Magisterium, even in the hands of otherwise competent
authority, as has been the case in heresy after heresy down through
history, that he still defer to their 'expertise' as officials and
experts, regardless? Do you suggest that Catholics are _not_ their
brother's keeper? Do you recommend that where souls are at stake that
a Catholic 'bite his tongue'? Do you suppose that when a Pope calls
for holy correction that he means to exclude all but a few bishops and
members of the curia? Do you suggest we all just stay pretty much to
ourselves? I'm trying to understand your refusal to consider, as they
say, the merits of the case, the reason why I consider 'new order' not
to be valid, as lacking Our Lord in The Eucharist. I've put down my
sense of it at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you
are interested.
>In your shoes, Mark, I think I'd be well-advised to go look up the definition
>of the word "humility."
But not to repeat myself, again, but doesn't that also beg the
question? I mean, how do _you_ define - humility?
Peace.
Mark Hartman
>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
>>In article <332525a4...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>>>
>>>Let's say the Pope decides to promulgate a liturgy in which the sense
>>>is given that The Eucharist is a memorial, alone, not anything changed
>>>in substance. Approved or no, wouldn't you think that a line no Pope
>>>has the authority to cross? Or would you suggest the Pope is somehow
>>>above the Magisterium, and is a law unto himself? or the bishops or
>>>cardinals for that matter? There is a standard to be used in these
>>>matters.
>>
>>And, apparently, you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of whether this
>>standard is met.
>
>Then you are suggesting a false pluralism or pietism, or clericalism,
>instead? Do you suggest that where a Catholic sees something that runs
>against the Magisterium, even in the hands of otherwise competent
>authority, as has been the case in heresy after heresy down through
>history, that he still defer to their 'expertise' as officials and
>experts, regardless?
Mark, you make my point for me.
You are setting yourself up as the person who determines what runs against
the Magisterium, and regarding yourself as free to hold a different opinion,
against the entire weight of the pronouncements of the Church, as to what
"faithfulness to the Magisterium" means. You imply that the Church itself
is in heresy - a condition that is _de fide_ impossible, and a heresy itself.
You are the one suggesting a false pluralism; that every Catholic should be
free to disregard anything not specifically declared to be infallible by the
Church. But, if the Church is in heresy - that is, the Holy Spirit is not
leading it "into all truth" rather than heresy - why, indeed, accept even
that which it declares to be infallible? Since you declare it to be lacking
one of the marks of the True Church - why be a member of it at all?
And thus you start down the road to Protestantism.
>Do you suggest that Catholics are _not_ their brother's keeper?
No. Do you suggest that the Church does not have the power to bind and
loose? That what it does in matters of faith and morals is not protected
by the Holy Spirit?
>Do you recommend that where souls are at stake that a Catholic 'bite his
>tongue'?
No. Do you recommend that when someone calls the central act of Catholic
worship into question that he continue to be considered to be Catholic?
>Do you suppose that when a Pope calls for holy correction that he means to
>exclude all but a few bishops and members of the curia?
No. Do you suppose that the Pope meant that "correction" meant flying in the
face of authoritative teaching of the Magisterium - that is, the promulgation
of the Novus Ordo, which falls under the "ordinary infallibilty" of the
Church - and giving rise to public scandal?
>Do you suggest we all just stay pretty much to ourselves?
No. Do you suggest that we all reject any teaching of the Church that we
don't like or that we can't understand why is valid, simply because our
understanding of the Magisterium is limited?
>I'm trying to understand your refusal to consider, as they
>say, the merits of the case, the reason why I consider 'new order' not
>to be valid, as lacking Our Lord in The Eucharist. I've put down my
>sense of it at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you
>are interested.
I read it.
1. Why do you think that the Catechism of Trent is the end-all and be-all
of the Liturgy now and forever?
2. I sympathize with your disdain for the ICEL; however, it has no bearing
here. The Church could declare, as do the Orthodox, that the gesture of
hands over the Eucharistic Species (I forget the term for this) is the
effective act of consecration, regardless of the form of the words, AND
IT WOULD BE SO. The Church has this authority.
3. Since you obviously have no problem with the consecration of the Host -
or it would be on your web site - then you're in a bit of a dilemma here.
Since the Host is consecrated first - and, apparently according to your
point of view, validly - then what makes the Novus Ordo invalid?
You fail to make any kind of case - except an unassailable case that you
really should not be considered Catholic, and that you are in a state of
heresy sufficient to be outside the communion of the Church. I make this
observation solely from the facts you have presented; I apologize if I am
in error as to any of them, but it's all based on your statements here and
on your web page.
>>In your shoes, Mark, I think I'd be well-advised to go look up the definition
>>of the word "humility."
>
>But not to repeat myself, again, but doesn't that also beg the
>question? I mean, how do _you_ define - humility?
How's "acceptance under obedience, while remaining intellectually questioning,
of the authority of the Church" sound to you?
============================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
============================================================================
You can take away my Mac when you pry the mouse out of my cold, dead fingers
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>Then you are suggesting a false pluralism or pietism, or clericalism,
>instead? Do you suggest that where a Catholic sees something that runs
>against the Magisterium, even in the hands of otherwise competent
>authority, as has been the case in heresy after heresy down through
>history, that he still defer to their 'expertise' as officials and
>experts, regardless? Do you suggest that Catholics are _not_ their
>brother's keeper? Do you recommend that where souls are at stake that
>a Catholic 'bite his tongue'? Do you suppose that when a Pope calls
>for holy correction that he means to exclude all but a few bishops and
>members of the curia? Do you suggest we all just stay pretty much to
>ourselves? I'm trying to understand your refusal to consider, as they
>say, the merits of the case, the reason why I consider 'new order' not
>to be valid, as lacking Our Lord in The Eucharist. I've put down my
>sense of it at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you
>are interested.
Who are you accusing of heresy? The magisterium is the teaching
authority of the Bishop of Rome and other bishops united with him.
What bishop in union with the Ecumenical Pontiff can you point to as
your authority for interpreting the magisterium?
If you can not name a bishop who shares your views, then I must
interpret your "magisterium" to be separate from that of the Church.
Joseph Davidchik
> I would say, Mark, that Canon Law makes it clear that the Bishop of
> Rome can do whatever he wants without being held responsible to anyone
> else. In fact, Canon Law expressly excommunicates anyone who tries to
> appeal a decision of the Bishop of Rome to a General Council.
>
> I think that freedom of his to act as he pleases is implied by the
> whole idea of infallibility. If the Bishop of Rome is infallible then
> there is no substance to whatever you are trying to assert.
I am not a church historian, but I think that this statement is
historically inaccurate. I believe that popes have been rebuked by
councils. You are overextending the limits of papal infallibility. I
think that an essential statement on faith and morals requires the
approval of the magisterium to be infallibile. In practicality, no modern
pope would make a crucial proclamation without the consent of the highest
deliberative body of the Church. It is the duty of the magesterium or
whatever you want to call it, to advise the pope.
The Pope and the Magesterium were in agreement on Vatican II. Whether or
not some of the implementation has been flawed is not a question of papal
infallibity per se.
Mike Davidchik
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to understand your refusal to consider, as they
>>say, the merits of the case, the reason why I consider 'new order' not
>>to be valid, as lacking Our Lord in The Eucharist. I've put down my
>>sense of it at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, if you
>>are interested.
>
>If you can not name a bishop who shares your views, then I must
>interpret your "magisterium" to be separate from that of the Church.
Never claimed it was the popular view. By your reasoning, Liberius was
right, Athanasius was wrong all along, and should have stayed
excommunicated. Again, not to compare myself to a saint, or this great
saint, but the idea that an idea is unpopular does not mean the
complaint, itself, is wrong. In fact, in the time of Arianism, the
question might well have been asked, which is The Church Militant -
The Church, or those who seem to oppose it? even those excommunicated
(which you can see, again, why St. Athanasius is so admired by the
Pius priests, for ex). History records it was not those mostly in
positions of authority, incl the Pope, but rather those who opposed
what passed for The Church, who restored, for a while, The Church as
it ought to be. That is, they didn't oppose The Church because they
cleaved to the Magisterium. Too many in authority did not. And as to
the rest who were in a position to speak up - as today - what can I
say? they came around, by God's grace.
That is, you might consider the complaint, rather than the complainer,
as it were, and not rely so much on official explanation and rationale
in a time of obvious and widespread heresy. We are called upon to use
judgment based on prayer and obedience to Our Lord. The only thing
official, in this, is the Magisterium - the infallible truth of God.
We must have this standard, and it must hold for all, however high
their office. No man is above the law, in other words, certainly not
myself.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <3328a27a...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>Do you suggest that where a Catholic sees something that runs
>>against the Magisterium, even in the hands of otherwise competent
>>authority, as has been the case in heresy after heresy down through
>>history, that he still defer to their 'expertise' as officials and
>>experts, regardless?
>
>You are setting yourself up as the person who determines what runs against
>the Magisterium, and regarding yourself as free to hold a different opinion,
>against the entire weight of the pronouncements of the Church,
I oppose 'new order', which I think fails to conform itself to what
The Church teaches. I've put some thoughts on the matter up at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, which you tell me
you've read?
>You imply that the Church itself is in heresy
No more so than to use the phrase that 'The Church was in heresy' in
the time of Athanasius. Clearly The Church was not at fault in his
time. It was the Pope, bishops, cardinals, priests and whoever else
fell for Arianism and persecuted those who did not. The Church
Militant survived, thanks to Athansius; thanks more so to the hand and
power that led and guided him - Our Lord, Himself, and so the standard
of God, Himself; the standard of His Magisterium. It _IS_ God's
Church, remember. He's the landlord, Who owns the thing.
>if the Church is in heresy - that is, the Holy Spirit is not
>leading it "into all truth" rather than heresy - why, indeed, accept even
>that which it declares to be infallible?
Because it was what is infallible that gave lie to Arianism, and all
the other heresies - and will, ultimately, give the lie to the present
mix of neo-modernism, neo-paganism and neo-Protestantism - all, as
it's ever been the case, coming under the single rubric of, pride
(narcissism, selfishness - to become as gods).
>And thus you start down the road to Protestantism.
But I don't question The Church's Magisterium, nor its right to
collate Scripture, nor to interpret such. I don't dispute the saints.
I don't dispute the teaching on sin, Original Sin, Adam and Eve, the
Sacraments, Mary's place and titles, and the rest. I don't dispute the
teaching on Heaven or Hell, or Purgatory. And I believe the Holy
Father to occupy the office as the head of The Church Militant, and to
clarify the Magisterium according to rule. If that were the definition
of Protestant - then they'd be Catholic. My complaint is not with The
Holy Mass, which is offered here and there, increasingly so (and thank
God, Himself, for it). It is with this substitute for The Mass, called
'new order'.
>>Do you suggest that Catholics are _not_ their brother's keeper?
>
>No. Do you suggest that the Church does not have the power to bind and
>loose?
Send forth, just what? that which offends God? Why would God
cooperate, offer graces, act providentially, if it were something
opposed to the truth? Did God support the Arians, in other words, or
was His hand seen rather to guide Athanasius, and to open the hearts
and minds of many who had turned away, _in_ Church authority, to the
message and warnings of Athanasius (again, not in any way to compare
myself with him, but just to offer the example).
>That what it does in matters of faith and morals is not protected
>by the Holy Spirit?
How does the promulgation of 'new order' go to "faith and morals"?
Frankly, the more important question is, how does it even go to the
ordinary Magisterium?
>Do you recommend that when someone calls the central act of Catholic
>worship into question that he continue to be considered to be Catholic?
If he opposes The Holy Mass, I would think he was wrong. If he opposes
'new order', I might agree he could have a point, there.
>Do you suggest that we all reject any teaching of the Church
>that we don't like or that we can't understand why is valid,
>simply because our understanding of the Magisterium is limited?
It's a rhetorical question, I suppose. Let me try one. Do we accept
and participate in something promoted by those in authority in The
Church, regardless of the Magisterium, or in spite of it?
>1. Why do you think that the Catechism of Trent is the end-all and be-all
> of the Liturgy now and forever?
Because it was the Mass of St. Peter, who was there in the Cenacle
when Our Lord instituted the new Unbloody Sacrifice. There are
different liturgies, based on that. But they use to agree on the
consecration, and so much else, as well. The Greek liturgy, after all,
looks far more like the 'Tridentine' Mass than does 'new order'.
Consider this:
"From the beginning, the Mass was said according to a long Liturgy
and with ceremonies differing little from those of our time [1906].
No substantial addition was made after the Apostolic age - what the
early Popes did was of minor importance - revisions and corrections.
Little addition was made to the Ordinary of The Mass handed down
from the days of Peter, founder of our Latin Liturgy."
[Rev. Meagher, How Christ Said the First Mass, preface, 1906,
TAN repr.]
And then consider this:
" Father Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the most influential
members of Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium
(which actually composed the new Mass), . . . remarked in 1976:
'Let those who like myself have known and sung a
Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can.
Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. . . .
[For] this needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman rite
as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."
[The Latin Mass, v5 #4, p26]
>2. I sympathize with your disdain for the ICEL; however, it has no bearing
> here. The Church could declare, as do the Orthodox, that the gesture of
> hands over the Eucharistic Species (I forget the term for this) is the
> effective act of consecration, regardless of the form of the words, AND
> IT WOULD BE SO. The Church has this authority.
What you mean is that some in The Church have the putative right to do
as they please. You leave God out of the calculus, here. It's not wise
to do so.
>3. Since you obviously have no problem with the consecration of the Host -
> or it would be on your web site - then you're in a bit of a dilemma here.
> Since the Host is consecrated first - and, apparently according to your
> point of view, validly - then what makes the Novus Ordo invalid?
And here I thought you read my note, mentioned above. The species of
bread and wine are physically separated, yes. But they are together,
in The Holy Mass, both The Eucharist, each and together the Body and
Blood of Our Lord. If one is not valid, neither is the other; they are
inseparable. I was under the same misapprehension at one time, myself,
as you are now. But it was explained to me, in another forum, and I
came upon various things to read which confirmed what seems, now, the
obv sense of it. Before that, I was of the opinion that even if the
wine were improperly consecrated - and I'd had even just the gut sense
of this for months, even years (?), before concluding what I did of
'new order' - that if the host were validly consecrated with just the
four simple words and as The Church intended, that Our Lord deigned to
be spat upon and mocked through all the rest of 'new order', for our
sake. I now believe the 'new order' Church is empty, a tomb, something
which has been invaded by those, however well-intentioned in their
ignorance, who oppose The Church in its central mission to win souls
for Our Lord.
>really should not be considered Catholic, and that you are in a state of
>heresy sufficient to be outside the communion of the Church.
You might be surprized to learn you are not the first to offer that
charge. I just wish you could make the case for it, or at least make a
start in that direction, before you accuse someone of hating the
things of God so much he would deny them in preference to something
which offends Our Lord.
The Pius priests, btw, in making their case against the Popes, perhaps
since Pius 12th, include the following, which seems pertinent, here:
VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878): "I am only the pope. What power
have I to touch the Canon?" [In response to requests that he add the
name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass.]
FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617): " . . . the Pope could be
schismatic, if he . . . wished to overturn the rites of the Church
based on Apostolic Tradition." (De Charitate, Disputatio
XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
and: "If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs, one
does not have to obey him."
[found: ftp://ftp.wco.com/users/morrison/traditio/popel.txt]
Now I point this out, which seems obv to me at any rate, not to
support or condemn the Pius priests, but to say that others, beside
myself, have also been of the opinion that the Pope is not above the
law. One need only read the promulgation note of 'new order' itself to
see how carefully whoever wrote it gave at least lip service to the
sense of the council and what they proscribed as well as what they
arguably prescribed (even by what was suggested in the note).
>How's "acceptance under obedience, while remaining intellectually questioning,
>of the authority of the Church" sound to you?
The Nuremburg defense isn't considered acceptable even to the world.
And holy obedience does not demand we obey someone who orders us to
offend Our Lord. Holy obedience is that we obey God, even to our
distress and discomfort. Holy obedience is marching to God's order,
not to that of someone captivated by the world and its delusions. I
hope you are clear on that, please. We need a standard. And that
standard has cut apart heresy after heresy in the past, and must do so
again. That standard is the truth of God in His Magisterium, that
truth taught by His Own Church, The Roman Catholic Church. 'New order'
simply does not meet that standard. You can read what I cited above.
As people seem to like to say these days - do the math.
Peace.
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>If you can not name a bishop who shares your views, then I must
>>interpret your "magisterium" to be separate from that of the Church.
><snip>
>That is, you might consider the complaint, rather than the complainer,
>as it were, and not rely so much on official explanation and rationale
>in a time of obvious and widespread heresy. We are called upon to use
>judgment based on prayer and obedience to Our Lord. The only thing
>official, in this, is the Magisterium - the infallible truth of God.
>We must have this standard, and it must hold for all, however high
>their office. No man is above the law, in other words, certainly not
>myself.
In other words, Mark, your "magisterium" is separate from that of the
Church.
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>In other words, Mark, your "magisterium" is separate from that of the
>Church.
You really are grasping, here. Don't insult my intelligence. And don't
waste your time with such pointless nonsense as you suggested, above.
The Magisterium is that of The Church. It is that truth which gave the
lie to heresy after heresy, and will so, again, for the present
widespread heresy which is crippling The Church Militant. Count on it.
Bank on it. Trust me when I tell you this.
Peace.
Mark Hartman
>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
>>In article <3328a27a...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
>>>Do you suggest that where a Catholic sees something that runs
>>>against the Magisterium, even in the hands of otherwise competent
>>>authority, as has been the case in heresy after heresy down through
>>>history, that he still defer to their 'expertise' as officials and
>>>experts, regardless?
>>
>>You are setting yourself up as the person who determines what runs against
>>the Magisterium, and regarding yourself as free to hold a different opinion,
>>against the entire weight of the pronouncements of the Church,
>
>I oppose 'new order', which I think fails to conform itself to what
>The Church teaches. I've put some thoughts on the matter up at
>http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, which you tell me
>you've read?
Yes. Your whole position is based upon what YOU, and like-minded others,
think offends God.
>>You imply that the Church itself is in heresy
>
>No more so than to use the phrase that 'The Church was in heresy' in
>the time of Athanasius. Clearly The Church was not at fault in his
>time. It was the Pope, bishops, cardinals, priests and whoever else
>fell for Arianism and persecuted those who did not. The Church
>Militant survived, thanks to Athansius; thanks more so to the hand and
>power that led and guided him - Our Lord, Himself, and so the standard
>of God, Himself; the standard of His Magisterium. It _IS_ God's
>Church, remember. He's the landlord, Who owns the thing.
So you agree with the proposition that the Holy Spirit is, from your point
of view, NOT leading the Church "into all truth," but that the Church is
promulgating error, and that which the Church has promulgated as the Mass -
that is, the Novus Ordo liturgy - is in your opinion a sham and a lie.
You cannot be a Catholic and seriously hold this point of view.
>>if the Church is in heresy - that is, the Holy Spirit is not
>>leading it "into all truth" rather than heresy - why, indeed, accept even
>>that which it declares to be infallible?
>
>Because it was what is infallible that gave lie to Arianism, and all
>the other heresies - and will, ultimately, give the lie to the present
>mix of neo-modernism, neo-paganism and neo-Protestantism - all, as
>it's ever been the case, coming under the single rubric of, pride
>(narcissism, selfishness - to become as gods).
It may interest you to know that Arianism was never an official teaching
of the Church; it was a movement within the Church which was eventually
condemned as heretical.
However, you now wish to disregard this historical evidence and say that
the Church's official, standard liturgy is a fraud, even though it's the
official teaching of the Church, and therefore comes under the ordinary
infallibility of the Magisterium. The Magisterium of the Church, I mean,
not the one that you refer to which, as "BugDaddy" Bill correctly points
out, is separate and distinct from, and does not contain the authority of,
that of the Church.
>>And thus you start down the road to Protestantism.
>
>But I don't question The Church's Magisterium, nor its right to
>collate Scripture, nor to interpret such. I don't dispute the saints.
>I don't dispute the teaching on sin, Original Sin, Adam and Eve, the
>Sacraments, Mary's place and titles, and the rest. I don't dispute the
>teaching on Heaven or Hell, or Purgatory. And I believe the Holy
>Father to occupy the office as the head of The Church Militant, and to
>clarify the Magisterium according to rule. If that were the definition
>of Protestant - then they'd be Catholic. My complaint is not with The
>Holy Mass, which is offered here and there, increasingly so (and thank
>God, Himself, for it). It is with this substitute for The Mass, called
>'new order'.
The Magisterium of the Church has promulgated the Novus Ordo. You do not
simply question it - you condemn it. QED, you question the Magisterium.
The Novus Ordo is the Holy Mass. So is the Tridentine liturgy. So is the
Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrystosom. So is the Maronite liturgy. So are
all the other expressions of the Holy Mass which have been approved by the
Magisterium of the Church.
Anyone who holds differently is not in communion with the Church on that
point.
>>>Do you suggest that Catholics are _not_ their brother's keeper?
>>
>>No. Do you suggest that the Church does not have the power to bind and
>>loose?
>
>Send forth, just what? that which offends God? Why would God
>cooperate, offer graces, act providentially, if it were something
>opposed to the truth? Did God support the Arians, in other words, or
>was His hand seen rather to guide Athanasius, and to open the hearts
>and minds of many who had turned away, _in_ Church authority, to the
>message and warnings of Athanasius (again, not in any way to compare
>myself with him, but just to offer the example).
Once again, Arianism was never an official teaching of the Church, as much
as it was held by many of those in power in the Church. However, it was
eventually declared heretical.
There is no parallel here. You are denying a teaching of the Church which
comes completely under the ordinary infallible authority of the Church, and
you have no right, regardless of your reasoning, to publicly do so.
>>That what it does in matters of faith and morals is not protected
>>by the Holy Spirit?
>
>How does the promulgation of 'new order' go to "faith and morals"?
The Church has by virtue of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo declared
_de fide_ that it's a valid celebration of the Mass; therefore a question
of faith. Without the eyes of faith, nothing much happens at any Mass
anyway.
>Frankly, the more important question is, how does it even go to the
>ordinary Magisterium?
When something is promulgated by the Church, it is a teaching activity.
C'mon, you don't need me to tell you this. You know it, and are simply
ignoring it because it undercuts your point of view.
>>Do you recommend that when someone calls the central act of Catholic
>>worship into question that he continue to be considered to be Catholic?
>
>If he opposes The Holy Mass, I would think he was wrong.
As I pointed out, the Novus Ordo is a valid, approved, promulgated-by-the-
Magisterium expression of the Holy Mass. You are, therefore, as you note,
wrong.
>>Do you suggest that we all reject any teaching of the Church
>>that we don't like or that we can't understand why is valid,
>>simply because our understanding of the Magisterium is limited?
>
>It's a rhetorical question, I suppose.
Not at all. It describes your attitude to a "T".
>Let me try one. Do we accept and participate in something promoted by
>those in authority in The Church, regardless of the Magisterium, or in
>spite of it?
You seem to believe that there's a difference in this case. There's not.
>>1. Why do you think that the Catechism of Trent is the end-all and be-all
>> of the Liturgy now and forever?
>
>Because it was the Mass of St. Peter, who was there in the Cenacle
>when Our Lord instituted the new Unbloody Sacrifice. There are
>different liturgies, based on that. But they use to agree on the
>consecration, and so much else, as well. The Greek liturgy, after all,
>looks far more like the 'Tridentine' Mass than does 'new order'.
Then I suppose that the words of the Consecration, from your point of view,
would have to be read in either Aramaic or Koine Greek, depending upon what
Jesus was speaking at the time; that reading the words in any other language
would invalidate the Consecration, since the PRECISE meaning of the words
would not be expressed.
No? Any why not? Because the Church said that certain translations into
other languages - Latin, for example - were accurate enough. Just as the
Church holds the current translation, as inelegant and unsatisfying as it
is, to be accurate enough. The Church has the authority to do this; you
can't recognize the Consecration in any language but the language that Jesus
spoke (and I don't know which one he was speaking at the time; there's clear
evidence that he knew at least both of those languages) and deny that the
Church has this authority.
>Consider this:
>
>"From the beginning, the Mass was said according to a long Liturgy
> and with ceremonies differing little from those of our time [1906].
> No substantial addition was made after the Apostolic age - what the
> early Popes did was of minor importance - revisions and corrections.
> Little addition was made to the Ordinary of The Mass handed down
> from the days of Peter, founder of our Latin Liturgy."
> [Rev. Meagher, How Christ Said the First Mass, preface, 1906,
> TAN repr.]
I have no idea who this "Rev." Meagher is/was, nor any idea if what he
asserts is actually the case - but, having studied a bit of this myself,
I am not convinced.
>And then consider this:
>
> " Father Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the most influential
> members of Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium
> (which actually composed the new Mass), . . . remarked in 1976:
> 'Let those who like myself have known and sung a
> Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can.
> Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. . . .
> [For] this needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman rite
> as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."
> [The Latin Mass, v5 #4, p26]
OK, so he doesn't like the ceremony. Neither do I. So what? I don't have
to like it for it to be valid and worthy of my respect.
>>2. I sympathize with your disdain for the ICEL; however, it has no bearing
>> here. The Church could declare, as do the Orthodox, that the gesture of
>> hands over the Eucharistic Species (I forget the term for this) is the
>> effective act of consecration, regardless of the form of the words, AND
>> IT WOULD BE SO. The Church has this authority.
>
>What you mean is that some in The Church have the putative right to do
>as they please. You leave God out of the calculus, here. It's not wise
>to do so.
You'll have to tell me what you mean by this. "All power" was given into the
hands of the Church by Christ; are you aware of some secret codicil to this
grant?
Gee, and I didn't think that there were any real Gnostics left.
>>3. Since you obviously have no problem with the consecration of the Host -
>> or it would be on your web site - then you're in a bit of a dilemma here.
>> Since the Host is consecrated first - and, apparently according to your
>> point of view, validly - then what makes the Novus Ordo invalid?
>
>And here I thought you read my note, mentioned above. The species of
>bread and wine are physically separated, yes. But they are together,
>in The Holy Mass, both The Eucharist, each and together the Body and
>Blood of Our Lord. If one is not valid, neither is the other; they are
>inseparable.
You beg the question. You insist that I grant that the Consecration of the
Precious Blood is invalid, and then argue that "since" it's not, that the
Consecration of the Host cannot possibly be valid.
>I now believe the 'new order' Church is empty, a tomb, something
>which has been invaded by those, however well-intentioned in their
>ignorance, who oppose The Church in its central mission to win souls
>for Our Lord.
Thus you declare your self-excommunication from the One True Church.
>>really should not be considered Catholic, and that you are in a state of
>>heresy sufficient to be outside the communion of the Church.
>
>You might be surprized to learn you are not the first to offer that
>charge.
Not at all. I'm sure that I'm not the only faithful Catholic to oppose the
false claims which have been demolished both here and in so many other forums,
but that those who have an agenda inconsistent with the teaching of Christ
just can't seem to stop parroting.
>I just wish you could make the case for it, or at least make a
>start in that direction, before you accuse someone of hating the
>things of God so much he would deny them in preference to something
>which offends Our Lord.
A sufficient case has been made; the only attack on it that you have made,
besides irrelevant quotes from questionable sources, is that you have
determined in your sole, infallible judgement that, contrary to the public
assertion of the Church, the Novus Ordo liturgy is offensive to God to the
point that it is invalid.
>The Pius priests, btw, in making their case against the Popes, perhaps
>since Pius 12th, include the following, which seems pertinent, here:
>
>VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878): "I am only the pope. What power
>have I to touch the Canon?" [In response to requests that he add the
>name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass.]
John XXIII answered that when he added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon.
Is that when the Mass - even though it was still the Tridentine liturgy -
became invalid in your opinion? And if not, why not?
>FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617): " . . . the Pope could be
>schismatic, if he . . . wished to overturn the rites of the Church
>based on Apostolic Tradition." (De Charitate, Disputatio
>XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
>
>and: "If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs, one
>does not have to obey him."
So Suarez (whether a priest or simply a Jesuit brother is undetermined here)
is infallible on this point, yet the Pope and Magisterium of the Church - as
I must be careful to specify WHICH Magisterium I mean, to prevent confusion
with your private Magisterium - do not enjoy the same privilege. After all,
they're ONLY the One True Church; Suarez is *gasp* actually QUOTED in an
ACTUAL DOCUMENT published by PRIESTS! Who could doubt that?
>Now I point this out, which seems obv to me at any rate, not to
>support or condemn the Pius priests, but to say that others, beside
>myself, have also been of the opinion that the Pope is not above the
>law.
In point of fact, promulgation of the Novus Ordo is entirely within the
jurisdiction of the Pope according to the laws of the Church. Your
apparent appeal to some other law is not valid; in this matter, the Pope
personifies the Magisterium of the Church.
>One need only read the promulgation note of 'new order' itself to
>see how carefully whoever wrote it gave at least lip service to the
>sense of the council and what they proscribed as well as what they
>arguably prescribed (even by what was suggested in the note).
>
>>How's "acceptance under obedience, while remaining intellectually questioning,
>>of the authority of the Church" sound to you?
>
>The Nuremburg defense isn't considered acceptable even to the world.
Well, if you can't give "consent under obedience" to a matter of faith,
then have fun outside the Church - 'cause that's where you are.
>And holy obedience does not demand we obey someone who orders us to
>offend Our Lord. Holy obedience is that we obey God, even to our
>distress and discomfort. Holy obedience is marching to God's order,
>not to that of someone captivated by the world and its delusions.
Therefore, obviously, holy obedience demands that we condemn your assertions
as being contrary to the teaching of Christ's Church and its Magisterium.
But I'm surprised that you describe yourself so harshly, yet so accurately.
>I hope you are clear on that, please. We need a standard. And that
>standard has cut apart heresy after heresy in the past, and must do so
>again. That standard is the truth of God in His Magisterium, that
>truth taught by His Own Church, The Roman Catholic Church.
And it has already demolished this heresy that you adhere to, and will
continue to do so.
>'New order' simply does not meet that standard. You can read what I cited
>above. As people seem to like to say these days - do the math.
Setting yourself up as the arbiter of the standard is hubris of the worst
kind, not to mention a usurpation of the authority of the Church, the
organization that Christ Himself set up to be the arbiter of that standard.
The Church has already spoken on this matter. Sorry you don't like it.
>Peace.
May the Peace of Christ disturb you.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Windows '95: How often do you want to crash today?
Evan Kalenik
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
BD>I would say, Mark, that Canon Law makes it clear that the Bishop of
BD>Rome can do whatever he wants without being held responsible to
BD>anyone else. In fact, Canon Law expressly excommunicates anyone
BD>who tries to appeal a decision of the Bishop of Rome to a General
BD>Council.
BD> I think that freedom of his to act as he pleases is implied by the
BD> whole idea of infallibility. If the Bishop of Rome is infallible
BD> then there is no substance to whatever you are trying to assert.
> I am not a church historian, but I think that this statement is
> historically inaccurate. I believe that popes have been rebuked by
> councils.
Even condemned as a heretic by councils. Disputes between competing
popes were settled by a council. But that was then. Now your popes
control councils.
> You are overextending the limits of papal infallibility. I
> think that an essential statement on faith and morals requires the
> approval of the magisterium to be infallibile.
Not according to the dogma on papal infallibility. It expressly states
that he can declare things on his own without input, without the
support, without anything but his own authority.
> In practicality, no modern pope would make a crucial proclamation
> without the consent of the highest deliberative body of the Church.
Since the idea of papal infallibility is a modern invention of the last
150 years, it allows for a modern pope to do that. We are not talking
about something that existed before then so there is no "modern" vs. old
time pope situation. The reality is that you can only hope that the
pope does what you say, but there is no guarantee.
> It is the duty of the magesterium or whatever you want to call it,
> to advise the pope.
Not that he has to listen to them.
> The Pope and the Magesterium were in agreement on Vatican II.
> Whether or not some of the implementation has been flawed is not a
> question of papal infallibity per se.
Which overlooks a little point. The pope could have rejected anything
that Vatican II came up with. What was discussed was what he allowed to
be discussed. That he agreed with what was decided is not much of a
surprise since he had control.
Evan
Mark Hartman
In article <davidchik-150...@davidchik.oro.net>,
davi...@oro.net (Joseph Davidchik) wrote:
>In article <332bc928...@news.cris.com>, BugD...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> I would say, Mark, that Canon Law makes it clear that the Bishop of
>> Rome can do whatever he wants without being held responsible to anyone
>> else. In fact, Canon Law expressly excommunicates anyone who tries to
>> appeal a decision of the Bishop of Rome to a General Council.
>>
>> I think that freedom of his to act as he pleases is implied by the
>> whole idea of infallibility. If the Bishop of Rome is infallible then
>> there is no substance to whatever you are trying to assert.
>
>I am not a church historian, but I think that this statement is
>historically inaccurate. I believe that popes have been rebuked by
>councils.
Yes - for personal actions, or failures to act. However, a "rebuke" has
no actual force. A council has no authority over the Pope.
>You are overextending the limits of papal infallibility. I
>think that an essential statement on faith and morals requires the
>approval of the magisterium to be infallibile.
In point of fact, this is wrong. When speaking ex cathedra, the Pope IS
the Magisterium; unless seriously schizophrenic, it would be difficult at
that point NOT to have such approval.
In practicality, no modern
>pope would make a crucial proclamation without the consent of the highest
>deliberative body of the Church. It is the duty of the magesterium or
>whatever you want to call it, to advise the pope.
The term you're looking for here is the "Curia;" other than that, you're
completely correct. The day-to-day implementation of the work of the
Magisterium, the teaching authority, of the Church is through the Curia;
the bureacracy, if you will. Sorry about the nasty word there. :)
>The Pope and the Magesterium were in agreement on Vatican II. Whether or
>not some of the implementation has been flawed is not a question of papal
>infallibity per se.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
"But it's not a fair test! People LIKE to use the Macintosh!"
Fizgig
Evan Kalenik wrote:
> Which overlooks a little point. The pope could have rejected anything
> that Vatican II came up with. What was discussed was what he allowed to
> be discussed. That he agreed with what was decided is not much of a
> surprise since he had control.
I believe the picture of a calculating Pope in absolute control of the
Council is not exactly accurate. After all, the Council was called by
Pope John XXIII, who died during the course of the proceedings. Pope
Paul VI presided over the latter portion of the Council and its
dissolution. Thus we have two different individual personalities and a
brief interregnum which would mitigate against the picture of
"Machiavellian" absolutism. An interesting note concerning the
Council: Our Present Holy Father, John Paul II was Archbishop of Krakow
during the Council, and served with distinction in its proceedings. If
memory serves, he was an influential voice in the composition of the
Pastoral Constitution on The Church in The Modern World, "Gaudium et
Spes", and/or The Dogmatic Constitution on The Church "Lumen Gentium".
(I cannot seem to recall clearly which of these, or perhaps both,
displays the Holy Father's consistent philosophical vision.)
Evan Kalenik
Fizgig wrote:
> I believe the picture of a calculating Pope in absolute control of the
> Council is not exactly accurate. After all, the Council was called by
> Pope John XXIII, who died during the course of the proceedings. Pope
> Paul VI presided over the latter portion of the Council and its
> dissolution. Thus we have two different individual personalities
> and a brief interregnum which would mitigate against the picture of
> "Machiavellian" absolutism.
A calculating pope is not really the issue. The pope, either
John XXIII the second or Paul VI had the authority to veto anything
that came out of the meetings. They controlled what would be discussed
at the meeting. If the first had not died there is no way of knowing if
what did happen under the second would have happened. Against such a
popular pope as John, Paul would have had a hard time changing what John
had wanted. But that is all speculation.
Evan
BugDaddy
m...@pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <davidchik-150...@davidchik.oro.net>,
>davi...@oro.net (Joseph Davidchik) wrote:
>>I am not a church historian, but I think that this statement is
>>historically inaccurate. I believe that popes have been rebuked by
>>councils.
>Yes - for personal actions, or failures to act. However, a "rebuke" has
>no actual force. A council has no authority over the Pope.
True enough. This is not a new doctrine, contrary to what Evan has
written. At the First Council of Nicea, a canon was enacted which
named Constantinople second to Rome. The pope -- I believe it was
Sylvester -- refused to accept that canon. So even in 325 A.D. the
pope claimed the authority to judge the council. It's a good thing
too that he had that authority, considering the councils at Tyre, at
Antioch, at Seleucia and the "robber" council of Ephesus which denied
the *Homoousion.*
>>You are overextending the limits of papal infallibility. I
>>think that an essential statement on faith and morals requires the
>>approval of the magisterium to be infallibile.
>In point of fact, this is wrong. When speaking ex cathedra, the Pope IS
>the Magisterium; unless seriously schizophrenic, it would be difficult at
>that point NOT to have such approval.
There is no question that in Catholic thought, the decisions of the
pope require no approval of anyone else.
>In practicality, no modern
>>pope would make a crucial proclamation without the consent of the highest
>>deliberative body of the Church. It is the duty of the magesterium or
>>whatever you want to call it, to advise the pope.
>The term you're looking for here is the "Curia;" other than that, you're
>completely correct. The day-to-day implementation of the work of the
>Magisterium, the teaching authority, of the Church is through the Curia;
>the bureacracy, if you will. Sorry about the nasty word there. :)
The Curia is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Vatican.
John Paul II has, however, been very creative in his use of the Synod
of Bishops and the College of Cardinals for making long term
decisions.
>>The Pope and the Magesterium were in agreement on Vatican II. Whether or
>>not some of the implementation has been flawed is not a question of papal
>>infallibity per se.
And here we come back to Mark Johnson and his rejection of that
Magisterium.
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
Then name one active bishop who supports your view.
Evan Kalenik
BugDaddy wrote:
> >Yes - for personal actions, or failures to act. However,
> >a "rebuke" has no actual force. A council has no authority over the
> >Pope.
> True enough. This is not a new doctrine, contrary to what Evan has
> written. At the First Council of Nicea, a canon was enacted which
> named Constantinople second to Rome. The pope -- I believe it was
> Sylvester -- refused to accept that canon. So even in 325 A.D. the
> pope claimed the authority to judge the council.
Actually the objection that the pope had was that Constantinople was not
an apostolic see. Not that the Church had the right to set up order
within the Church.
But your case is truly not made by the objections of one bishop to one
section of the canons in one council vs. the authority that the Council
had within the Church. The Church never recognized the authority of the
bishop of Rome to judge the ecumenical councils and no pope acted as if
he could.
You also fail to note that the Church gave to different patriarchates
areas that fell under their guidance and support. The bishop of Rome,
just like the others, had a certain area that was theirs, not the whole
world.
So papal authority is a new invention, clearly unknown to the ancient
Catholic Church. And it was the power grab attempted by the bishop of
Rome that the Church rejected that lead Rome out of the Church. To
state otherwise is simply not honest to history and reality.
Evan
BugDaddy
In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>Fizgig wrote:
>> I believe the picture of a calculating Pope in absolute control of the
>> Council is not exactly accurate. After all, the Council was called by
>> Pope John XXIII, who died during the course of the proceedings. Pope
>> Paul VI presided over the latter portion of the Council and its
>> dissolution. Thus we have two different individual personalities
>> and a brief interregnum which would mitigate against the picture of
>> "Machiavellian" absolutism.
>A calculating pope is not really the issue. The pope, either
>John XXIII the second or Paul VI had the authority to veto anything
>that came out of the meetings. They controlled what would be discussed
>at the meeting.
This is simply not true. Popes have never controlled the debate
during councils. They do not even attend the regular sessions of a
council. I believe that when Pope John XXIII did give his opening
address at the Second Vatican Council it was a historic first. And as
I recall, he watched the debate on closed circuit TV, another first.
But there was no interference.
Pope Paul VI did intervene at one point during the debate at the
Second Vatican Council. As I recall, many of the liberal bishops
wanted to send one of the documents back to committee to be
re-written. They did not have enough votes, however, according to the
rules to do that. So they convinced the pope to issue an
extraordinary order to send it back to committee.
At the end of the Council, I believe that the Pope -- or perhaps the
head of one of the offices in the Curia did issue a one page note on
the proper interpretation of some minor points. I believe that the
only matter of any significance was a clarification of how the word
college should be applied to the college of bishops.
So Vatican II can not be said to have involved any significant
exercise of papal authority as distinct from episcopal authority.
Unfortunately, much of the work of Vatican II required implementation
after the end of the council. Much of what was done was directly
contrary to the intent of the council. For that one may justly
question the stewardship of Pope Paul VI.
>If the first had not died there is no way of knowing if
>what did happen under the second would have happened. Against such a
>popular pope as John, Paul would have had a hard time changing what John
>had wanted. But that is all speculation.
I find fault with your logic here. In fact the first one did die and
what was done was accomplished by the second regardless of any
popularity of the first. So nothing is speculation -- it is history.
If you would speculate on the opposite question -- what would have
happened had John XXIII lived longer -- I suspect that the Church
would be much better off now. For John XXIII was a genuine
conservative who would not have tolerated any of the nonsense we have
seen.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
Evan Kalenik
BugDaddy wrote:
> This is simply not true. Popes have never controlled the debate
> during councils. They do not even attend the regular sessions of a
> council. I believe that when Pope John XXIII did give his opening
> address at the Second Vatican Council it was a historic first. And as
> I recall, he watched the debate on closed circuit TV, another first.
> But there was no interference.
You certainly are not denying that the pope could reject anthing that
came out of the council, are you? As for controlling what was said, if
you control the topics that can be discussed you are controlling the
council.
The idea of the bishop being absent is also foreign to the ideas of
councils over the centuries, another Roman Catholic innovation.
> Pope Paul VI did intervene at one point during the debate at the
> Second Vatican Council. As I recall, many of the liberal bishops
> wanted to send one of the documents back to committee to be
> re-written. They did not have enough votes, however, according to the
> rules to do that. So they convinced the pope to issue an
> extraordinary order to send it back to committee.
So he controlled what went on. If he sent it back to be rewritten, was
it? Probably. That a minority wanted it is not material here since the
Church is not a democracy. That Paul supported the liberal bishops is
neither a surprise nor a factor.
> At the end of the Council, I believe that the Pope -- or perhaps the
> head of one of the offices in the Curia did issue a one page note on
> the proper interpretation of some minor points. I believe that the
> only matter of any significance was a clarification of how the word
> college should be applied to the college of bishops.
Which does not disprove my point.
> So Vatican II can not be said to have involved any significant
> exercise of papal authority as distinct from episcopal authority.
By your examples, it did not involve hardly any papal involvement at
all. That does not mean that the pope could not reject anything that
went on there.
> Unfortunately, much of the work of Vatican II required implementation
> after the end of the council. Much of what was done was directly
> contrary to the intent of the council. For that one may justly
> question the stewardship of Pope Paul VI.
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how one was affected by it.
> I find fault with your logic here. In fact the first one did die and
> what was done was accomplished by the second regardless of any
> popularity of the first. So nothing is speculation -- it is history.
There is no guarantee that Paul VI would have gone along with everything
that John XXIII the second went along with. He did not contradict him,
but he might not have agreed with him. As you said above, one could
question Paul's stewardship. Maybe it was not stewardship at all, but
rejection done quietly.
> If you would speculate on the opposite question -- what would have
> happened had John XXIII lived longer -- I suspect that the Church
> would be much better off now. For John XXIII was a genuine
> conservative who would not have tolerated any of the nonsense we have
> seen.
Which is what I was saying that there may have been things that Paul
approved of that John wouldn't have. Or the reverse. Since the bishop
of Rome controlled the outcome one can wonder what would have happened
if the whole meeting was under either of the two gentlemen.
Evan
Evan Kalenik
BugDaddy wrote:
>> A council has no authority over the Pope.
> True enough. This is not a new doctrine, contrary to what Evan has
> written.
Just one other thought, when there were competing popes, how was the
problem resolved? By a council. If a council could decide which pope
was legitimate, and that decision was accepted by the popes involved,
how could one say that the pope was over councils?
Evan
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>
>>>In other words, Mark, your "magisterium" is separate from that of the
>>>Church.
>
>name one active bishop who supports your view.
It _is_ a different thing than your charge against me, above. At any
rate, you must consider that an opinion that is in the minority, is
not necessarily wrong just because many or most seem to oppose it, at
the time. Certainly, the test of courage, _these days_, is merely that
a bishop speak warmly of the Latin Rite, never mind saying something
against 'new order'. The liberal bishops approve, it would seem, of
the craziness being passed off for Catholicism; but the 'indult' at
least allows Catholics The Mass, and these bishops the opportunity to
act without saying anything against 'new order' (particularly those
more truly orthodox in their faith). Lefebvre and Meyer, for example,
were 'active', as you so carefully phrase it, before one may or may
not have put himself in schism (the 'jury' seems more out on that,
today, than ever), and the latter wanted to join his friend in
whatever punishment (again, whether real or imaginary). A bishop who,
for example, in the early 70s refused to give up the Latin Mass, might
be charged with being 'uncollegial' (or some such cant) by other
bishops, and forced into retirement.
So "active", of course, begs the important question, which is - is it
right? Would the saints and doctors have approved? Aquinas, for
example, seems quite clear in the Summa about what could be done to
invalidate the Mass. And this is, essentially, the analysis I offer at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, for those interested
in it. As for cardinals and bishops, you _are_, of course, familiar
with the 'Ottovani' Intervention, of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (and
Bacci). As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he
sent the Pope a note, which was to have been signed by about 15
cardinals, as "then the powerful Prefect of the Holy Office (thus
Ratzinger's predecessor as the Church's highest doctrinal official),
Ottaviani had such grave reservations about the proposed changes in
the Mass that he sent [this] letter to Paul VI asking him to
reconsider setting aside the old rite." [Latin Mass mag, v5 #1, p53]
This isn't to say he was prepared to call it invalid, at that point.
It isn't to say even von Hildebrand would say that, though he did
complain that "if one of the devils in CS Lewis', The Screwtape
Letters, had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not
have done it better." [LM mag, v5 #1, p52]
It seems that most are of the opinion that any liturgy offered by the
Pope, forced on all by said Pope (as 'new order' was in a way that the
Mass standardized by Trent was not), must be valid and protected by
God's Holy Spirit from error. And yet we are faced with a consecration
that does not preserve Our Lord's words, changes prayers in a manner
never imagined by Vatican II, rewrote a Canon in the vernacular never
considered by Vatican II, and fosters abuses that seem designed into
the thing rendering the entirety unholy and cheap. It seems a
contradiction to maintain this is 'preserved by God', of God, and yet
at the same time, clearly not of God and opposed to Him.
One might ask if the Holy Spirit deigned to preserve "dancing girls
[who] performed, . . . a large number of lay ministers given ciboria
containing unconsecrated breads which they held up at the offertory, .
. . [where] The Nicene Creed was replaced by an 'interesting question
and answer format.' . . . The Mass in question took place . . . on a
racetrack at Randwick [, Australia.] The celebrant of the Mass was
Pope John Paul II, and those who did protest were informed that 'every
detail . . . had prior Vatican approval.' " [The Mass of Many Firsts,
Latin Mass mag, v4 #3, p32]
The irony, of course, in writing to you, is that you participate in
something which has been preserved through all of this precisely
because it has ignored and done the opposite of the supposedly 'God
inspired' thing of the post-concilliar 'changing church'. "No one has
dared to tamper with the Eastern liturgy in the Catholic Church -
first, because the Eastern Catholics are a minority and therefore
thought to be less important by heretics in high places; and second,
because it would have confirmed the worst suspicions of the Orthodox
churches about Vatican tyranny and duplicity . . . [Count Neri
Capponi, . . . When The Church is in Chaos, Latin Mag mag, v3 #2,
pp30-31] As for the trendy vicar stuff of 'changing church', the great
Hagia Sophia, of 'Istanbul', in 1450 when still Catholic, "would find
a liturgy celebrated behind the iconostasis, secure from the gaze of
the faithful. Only twice would the priests exit the holy door and
address the people. The congregation would, as do easterners to this
day, mill in and out, pray and watch. Was there no participation in
Canterbury [Latin Mass] or Constantinople? None in the sense
understood by modern liturgists, for whom the model of participation
is not spiritual, not the union of souls in an action too wonderful
for human eyes to comprehend fully and justly shielded from the world,
but rather the participation of the sidelines or of the political
rallies, the participation of a mob united in sentiment . . ." [James
Patrick, From Prayer to Politics, Latin Mass mag, v4 #4, p.35]
Whatever form it takes to put down the present heresy, it will
necessarily involve the return to the words of Our Lord in the
consecration, the prayers of St. Peter's Mass, of Gregory's Mass, of
that of Pius V now called 'Tridentine' (for Trent). For whatever else
must be trashed in order to usher in the renewed orthodox and true
faith that nourished the saints and that martyrs gave their lives for,
'new order' comes at the very top of that list.
Peace.
"Churches ought to be provided with good men, not men with good
churches." [R. Bellarmine, On the Primary Duty of the Sovereign
Pontiff, 1601]
Evan Kalenik
BugDaddy wrote:
> Can. 1372 A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an
> Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops, is to be punished
> with a censure.
Kind of makes you wonder why the Roman Catholic Church put that in
except to prevent a return to the way the Roman Catholic Church used to
operate when it was part of the Church.
Or was it just to prevent the Unia folks from exercising something that
they had always been used to being able to do.
Evan
Mark Johnson
BugDaddy
In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, davi...@oro.net (Joseph
Davidchik) wrote:
>I am not a church historian, but I think that this statement is
>historically inaccurate. I believe that popes have been rebuked by
>councils. You are overextending the limits of papal infallibility. I
>think that an essential statement on faith and morals requires the
>approval of the magisterium to be infallibile. In practicality, no modern
>pope would make a crucial proclamation without the consent of the highest
>deliberative body of the Church. It is the duty of the magesterium or
>whatever you want to call it, to advise the pope.
>The Pope and the Magesterium were in agreement on Vatican II. Whether or
>not some of the implementation has been flawed is not a question of papal
>infallibity per se.
Some relevant points from Canon Law...
Can. 336 The head of the College of Bishops is the Supreme Pontiff,
and its members are the Bishops by virtue of their sacramental
consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the
College and its members. This College of Bishops, in which the
apostolic body abides in an unbroken manner, is, in union with its
head and never without this head, also the subject of supreme
and full power over the universal Church.
Can. 337 §1 The College of Bishops exercises its power over the
universal Church in solemn form in an Ecumenical Council.
§2 It exercises this same power by the united action of the Bishops
dispersed throughout the world, when this action is as such proclaimed
or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, so that it becomes a
truly collegial act.
§3 It belongs to the Roman Pontiff to select and promote, according to
the needs of the Church, ways in which the College of Bishops can
exercise its office in respect of the universal Church in a collegial
manner.
Can. 338 §1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon
an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through
others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve
its decrees.
§2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the
matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to
be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those
proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman
Pontiff .
Can. 339 §1 All Bishops, but only Bishops who are members of the
College of Bishops, have the right and the obligation to be present at
an Ecumenical Council with a deliberative vote.
§2 Some others besides, who do not have the episcopal dignity, can be
summoned to an Ecumenical Council by the supreme authority in the
Church, to whom it belongs to determine what part they take
in the Council.
Can. 340 If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the
celebration of the Council, it is by virtue of the law itself
suspended until the new Supreme Pontiff either orders it to continue
or dissolves it.
Can. 341 §1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless
they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of
the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his
direction.
§2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and
promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops
issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or
freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible
in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's
faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith,
he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith
or morals.
§2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching
when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and
exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and
morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be
held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed
throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among
themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same
Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are
agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is
manifestly demonstrated.
Can. 1372 A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an
Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops, is to be punished
with a censure.
BugDaddy
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>>name one active bishop who supports your view.
>It _is_ a different thing than your charge against me, above.
Not really, Mark, I have been saying that you follow your own
magisterium for a long time now.
>At any
>rate, you must consider that an opinion that is in the minority, is
>not necessarily wrong just because many or most seem to oppose it, at
>the time.
I do not fault your being in a minority. I fault your not accepting
the magisterium of the Church. We need you, Mark, in the Church
fighting the errors of modernism. But with your extreme views, you
are of no use to us.
>Certainly, the test of courage, _these days_, is merely that
>a bishop speak warmly of the Latin Rite, never mind saying something
>against 'new order'. The liberal bishops approve, it would seem, of
>the craziness being passed off for Catholicism; but the 'indult' at
>least allows Catholics The Mass, and these bishops the opportunity to
>act without saying anything against 'new order' (particularly those
>more truly orthodox in their faith). Lefebvre and Meyer, for example,
>were 'active', as you so carefully phrase it, before one may or may
>not have put himself in schism (the 'jury' seems more out on that,
>today, than ever),
The jury is not out. They were excommunicated.
>and the latter wanted to join his friend in
>whatever punishment (again, whether real or imaginary). A bishop who,
>for example, in the early 70s refused to give up the Latin Mass, might
>be charged with being 'uncollegial' (or some such cant) by other
>bishops, and forced into retirement.
>So "active", of course, begs the important question, which is - is it
>right? Would the saints and doctors have approved? Aquinas, for
>example, seems quite clear in the Summa about what could be done to
>invalidate the Mass.
Yes, I posted that and you ignored it, since it did not agree with
your extreme views.
>And this is, essentially, the analysis I offer at
>http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, for those interested
>in it. As for cardinals and bishops, you _are_, of course, familiar
>with the 'Ottovani' Intervention, of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (and
>Bacci). As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he
>sent the Pope a note, which was to have been signed by about 15
>cardinals, as "then the powerful Prefect of the Holy Office (thus
>Ratzinger's predecessor as the Church's highest doctrinal official),
>Ottaviani had such grave reservations about the proposed changes in
>the Mass that he sent [this] letter to Paul VI asking him to
>reconsider setting aside the old rite." [Latin Mass mag, v5 #1, p53]
>This isn't to say he was prepared to call it invalid, at that point.
>It isn't to say even von Hildebrand would say that, though he did
>complain that "if one of the devils in CS Lewis', The Screwtape
>Letters, had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not
>have done it better." [LM mag, v5 #1, p52]
Certainly, the liturgy has been ruined as an instrument for real
worship. It is valid, however. In many cases, I wish it weren't
valid. For an invalid liturgy is better than a sacrilegious one.
>It seems that most are of the opinion that any liturgy offered by the
>Pope, forced on all by said Pope (as 'new order' was in a way that the
>Mass standardized by Trent was not), must be valid and protected by
>God's Holy Spirit from error. And yet we are faced with a consecration
>that does not preserve Our Lord's words,
Even the Roman Catechism acknowledges that the form, which you think
is the only valid one, is not the exact words of Christ.
>changes prayers in a manner
>never imagined by Vatican II, rewrote a Canon in the vernacular never
>considered by Vatican II, and fosters abuses that seem designed into
>the thing rendering the entirety unholy and cheap. It seems a
>contradiction to maintain this is 'preserved by God', of God, and yet
>at the same time, clearly not of God and opposed to Him.
Certainly there are problems with the liturgy. I claim noting more
than that it is nominally valid.
>One might ask if the Holy Spirit deigned to preserve "dancing girls
>[who] performed, . . . a large number of lay ministers given ciboria
>containing unconsecrated breads which they held up at the offertory, .
>. . [where] The Nicene Creed was replaced by an 'interesting question
>and answer format.' . . . The Mass in question took place . . . on a
>racetrack at Randwick [, Australia.] The celebrant of the Mass was
>Pope John Paul II, and those who did protest were informed that 'every
>detail . . . had prior Vatican approval.' " [The Mass of Many Firsts,
>Latin Mass mag, v4 #3, p32]
It may surprise you that I do not claim that the pope is somehow above
liturgical norm. I think it completely possible that in a particular
case he may have willingly offered a liturgy that is sacriligeous.
Yet, I can not see how one can possibly suppose that the law of the
Church could be corrupt.
>The irony, of course, in writing to you, is that you participate in
>something which has been preserved through all of this precisely
>because it has ignored and done the opposite of the supposedly 'God
>inspired' thing of the post-concilliar 'changing church'. "No one has
>dared to tamper with the Eastern liturgy in the Catholic Church -
>first, because the Eastern Catholics are a minority and therefore
>thought to be less important by heretics in high places; and second,
>because it would have confirmed the worst suspicions of the Orthodox
>churches about Vatican tyranny and duplicity . . . [Count Neri
>Capponi, . . . When The Church is in Chaos, Latin Mag mag, v3 #2,
>pp30-31]
I don't know. We shall see this Sunday, how well the new liturgy
flows. As I have noted elsewhere, I have reservations about the way
the *silent* prayers of the liturgy will in the future be said aloud,
in the fashion of the New Age.
>As for the trendy vicar stuff of 'changing church', the great
>Hagia Sophia, of 'Istanbul', in 1450 when still Catholic, "would find
>a liturgy celebrated behind the iconostasis, secure from the gaze of
>the faithful. Only twice would the priests exit the holy door and
>address the people. The congregation would, as do easterners to this
>day, mill in and out, pray and watch. Was there no participation in
>Canterbury [Latin Mass] or Constantinople? None in the sense
>understood by modern liturgists, for whom the model of participation
>is not spiritual, not the union of souls in an action too wonderful
>for human eyes to comprehend fully and justly shielded from the world,
>but rather the participation of the sidelines or of the political
>rallies, the participation of a mob united in sentiment . . ." [James
>Patrick, From Prayer to Politics, Latin Mass mag, v4 #4, p.35]
What is this, Mark, another of your non-sequitors?
>Whatever form it takes to put down the present heresy, it will
>necessarily involve the return to the words of Our Lord in the
>consecration, the prayers of St. Peter's Mass, of Gregory's Mass, of
>that of Pius V now called 'Tridentine' (for Trent). For whatever else
>must be trashed in order to usher in the renewed orthodox and true
>faith that nourished the saints and that martyrs gave their lives for,
>'new order' comes at the very top of that list.
As I noted above, Mark, the Words of Institution used in the Divine
Liturgy of Saint Pius V are not the words of Christ.
-----------------------------------
Acts 8:30,31
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the
prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou
readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?
-----------------------------------
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/sophia/unknown.htm
Bill Overcamp
Mark Johnson
BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>>BugD...@cris.com (BugDaddy) wrote:
>I fault your not accepting the magisterium of the Church.
I don't think you know what the Magisterium is? Enlighten me on this,
if you will. Please, tell me I'm wrong.
> your extreme views, you are of no use to us.
"Us"? Anyone else part of the cabal?
> The jury is not out. They were excommunicated.
The jury is out. My complaint has been with the putative, reported
behavior of certain Pius priests pretending, again only according to
reports, to a clericalism and unholy arrogance; a neo-Protestant
attitude that might follow if they actually began believing all the
press against them.
>>Would the saints and doctors have approved? Aquinas, for
>>example, seems quite clear in the Summa about what could be done to
>>invalidate the Mass.
>Yes, I posted that and you ignored it, since it did not agree with
>your extreme views.
You think to win an argument, rather than talk about something, by
loading your comments with leading language? Maybe you're extreme.
Maybe _I_ should say that, about _you_? Let others judge. I know you
can appreciate that.
If you think Aquinas wrote something other than what I posted at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, then do please try to
make your case that I took him out of context, or that I just had a
particularly bad translation.
> Certainly, the liturgy has been ruined as an instrument for real
> worship. It is valid, however.
I don't believe it is. And I just cited the URL in which I make
something of the case for that, even to expanding a number of
paragraphs from before to answer the sort of objections even you've
raised in the last week or so.
> Even the Roman Catechism acknowledges that the form, which you think
> is the only valid one, is not the exact words of Christ.
But by holy tradition, from Peter, himself, The Church holds that Our
Lord said just what is said in the substantial part of the
consecration as found in The Mass (and, again, not in 'new order').
You are simply misinformed.
Now, this isn't to say that there are not other liturgies, some
approved, some perhaps not (I don't know), which do not quite use the
same words. But they don't change the meaning, as Aquinas took pains
to point out so long ago. The words of 'new order' are simply not
those of Our Lord. They are not what He said, would have said, tried
to say, but are rather something else, altogether. You must understand
that. Aquinas took some time, in the Summa, to describe why what
follows the words which instantly change the wine are just as
necessary to the Sacrament, and the Sacrifice. He used the example of
the relatively undemanding (because of its vital necessity,
paradoxically) Sacrament of Baptism to show how even words appended
after the words of the Sacrament, itself, can render the Sacrament
invalid. And so on. But I go into this, and more. And I've given you
the URL, on numerous occasions.
> I claim noting more than that it is nominally valid.
I have found The Church, the saints and doctors consistent in opposing
the sort of thing that was imposed by Paul VI, against the sense of
the council, and yet falsely in its name.
In fact, for all the mistakes and errors even you admit in 'new
order', I have to wonder how you reconcile such clear, structural
occasion for sin with the notion that 'new order', as designed, is
valid. In other words, what was built into The Mass, or the liturgy of
Chrysostom for that matter, in the original Latin (or Greek), or in
the vernacular translations, does not give the occasion for sin;
unless you can find examples of such. It's another way of looking at
it.
And, again, you routinely ignore what I write in all this. But I ask
you, again, to consider the words:
" Father Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the most influential
members of Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium
(which actually composed the new Mass), . . . remarked in 1976:
'Let those who like myself have known and sung a
Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can.
Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. . . .
[For] this needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman rite
as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."
[The Latin Mass, v5 #4, p26]
And, please, look, I release such things are uncomfortable for you,
particularly because they undercut your argument. But you need to
consider fact, reality, the ways things are, not the ways things would
seem warm and fuzzy. It's not warm and fuzzy out there, Bill.
Sweetness n light, today, is merely gall, painted over. And souls are
at stake. However much the 'better way' reformers might protest, if
they do, The Church is about winning souls, not plunging them into
spiritual confusion and abandoning them like naive children to the
subtle snares of fallen angels. What does one say of the shepherd who
locks the dogs away, takes down the fences, breaks out his picnic and
tells his flock to wander at will, for there is nothing to fear?
> I think it completely possible that in a particular
> case he may have willingly offered a liturgy that is sacriligeous.
> Yet, I can not see how one can possibly suppose that the law of the
> Church could be corrupt.
But it isn't the Magisterium that supports 'new order'. On the
contrary, it opposes it. You might well ask why so many in The Church
persecuted those who disagreed with them by the Magisterium, in the
Arian heresy. The truth won out. The Church Militant was saved, for a
while. The Magisterium was the standard for its rescue. It will be
again. It's a slam dunk certainly; one the 'better way' is loathe to
consider and likely just puts out of mind and 'doesn't talk about'
(perhaps somewhat in the way you've been treating my posts on 'new
order', Bill? just a question).
> I don't know. We shall see this Sunday, how well the new liturgy
> flows. As I have noted elsewhere, I have reservations about the way
> the *silent* prayers of the liturgy will in the future be said aloud,
> in the fashion of the New Age.
I must have missed that. What are you talking about? Are you saying
that the Canon in some Eastern Catholic liturgy is to be said aloud,
priest turned toward people, or the like? Would sort of give the lie,
a bit, to Caponni's confidence (as I quoted him in the message to
which you reply, here).
> As I noted above, Mark, the Words of Institution used in the Divine
> Liturgy of Saint Pius V are not the words of Christ.
The words of the consecration? in the Mass of St. Gregory, in the Mass
of St. Peter? But they are. That's the whole point. Sure wish you had
a moment to run by my web page,
http://www.geocites.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm. You wouldn't post what
you do, if you did. So I would think.
Peace.
Joseph Davidchik
>
> Or was it just to prevent the Unia folks from exercising something that
> they had always been used to being able to do.
>
> Evan
There are Eastern Rite bishops in the Council of Bishops deciding these matters.
Mike
Evan Kalenik
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
> There are Eastern Rite bishops in the Council of Bishops deciding
> these matters.
Yes, and some of them have been a bit vocal about not following the
Latin line when it comes to some things.
Evan
BugDaddy
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>BugDaddy wrote:
>> This is simply not true. Popes have never controlled the debate
>> during councils. They do not even attend the regular sessions of a
>> council. I believe that when Pope John XXIII did give his opening
>> address at the Second Vatican Council it was a historic first. And as
>> I recall, he watched the debate on closed circuit TV, another first.
>> But there was no interference.
>You certainly are not denying that the pope could reject anthing that
>came out of the council, are you?
I assert that Canon Law makes it clear that Paul VI could have
rejected whatever he wanted to. The actual *implementation* of the
Decrees of the Second Vatican Council definitely bears the mark of
Paul VI. Nevertheless, Paul VI promulgated all that the Council put
before him only issuing a very short document clarifying a couple of
minor points.
>As for controlling what was said, if
>you control the topics that can be discussed you are controlling the
>council.
Would you rather have an emperor control the topics discussed?
>The idea of the bishop being absent is also foreign to the ideas of
>councils over the centuries, another Roman Catholic innovation.
It is one that dates to the First Council of Nicea.
>> Pope Paul VI did intervene at one point during the debate at the
>> Second Vatican Council. As I recall, many of the liberal bishops
>> wanted to send one of the documents back to committee to be
>> re-written. They did not have enough votes, however, according to the
>> rules to do that. So they convinced the pope to issue an
>> extraordinary order to send it back to committee.
>So he controlled what went on. If he sent it back to be rewritten, was
>it? Probably. That a minority wanted it is not material here since the
>Church is not a democracy. That Paul supported the liberal bishops is
>neither a surprise nor a factor.
The Church is not a Democracy. Is Orthodoxy? No. It is an
oligarchy. Perhaps you would prefer it if the Church were an
oligarchy as well.
>> At the end of the Council, I believe that the Pope -- or perhaps the
>> head of one of the offices in the Curia did issue a one page note on
>> the proper interpretation of some minor points. I believe that the
>> only matter of any significance was a clarification of how the word
>> college should be applied to the college of bishops.
>Which does not disprove my point.
>> So Vatican II can not be said to have involved any significant
>> exercise of papal authority as distinct from episcopal authority.
>By your examples, it did not involve hardly any papal involvement at
>all. That does not mean that the pope could not reject anything that
>went on there.
I assert that he could have done so. He did not.
>> Unfortunately, much of the work of Vatican II required implementation
>> after the end of the council. Much of what was done was directly
>> contrary to the intent of the council. For that one may justly
>> question the stewardship of Pope Paul VI.
>Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how one was affected by it.
Perhaps you would prefer dancing girls to the Divine Liturgy.
>> I find fault with your logic here. In fact the first one did die and
>> what was done was accomplished by the second regardless of any
>> popularity of the first. So nothing is speculation -- it is history.
>There is no guarantee that Paul VI would have gone along with everything
>that John XXIII the second went along with. He did not contradict him,
>but he might not have agreed with him. As you said above, one could
>question Paul's stewardship. Maybe it was not stewardship at all, but
>rejection done quietly.
He did contradict John XXIII. Pope John was extraordinarily
conservative. He wrote an Apostolic Constitution praising the
Church's use of Latin. Had John XXIII lived to supervise the
implementation of the Council's decrees, the result would have been
radically different.
>> If you would speculate on the opposite question -- what would have
>> happened had John XXIII lived longer -- I suspect that the Church
>> would be much better off now. For John XXIII was a genuine
>> conservative who would not have tolerated any of the nonsense we have
>> seen.
>Which is what I was saying that there may have been things that Paul
>approved of that John wouldn't have. Or the reverse. Since the bishop
>of Rome controlled the outcome one can wonder what would have happened
>if the whole meeting was under either of the two gentlemen.
If you would wonder about it, you should wonder how things would have
been had John XXIII lived. There is no need to speculate about what
Paul VI did.
-----------------------------------
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
Bill Overcamp
BugDaddy
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
Yes, there have been false claims to the papacy. It is an important
office and there are those who seek wordly power through it.
If you are referring to the Great Western Schism, it was ended by the
decision of Pope Gregory XII to recognize the Council of Constance and
to resign. All the credit belongs to him.