The Greek Orthodox Churches

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1787159' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:40 PM']You still have yet to affirm or deny that there was a dispensation offered by John Paul II. If there was one offered, why was it not accepted? Why did the east not jump on the chance to enter back into the tradition that had been stripped of them?[/quote]
As I said before, you tend to see only what you want to see when you read my posts, because I have denied already that such a dispensation (i.e., from the prohibition that was forced upon the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America back in the 1920s) was offered. So let me repeat what I said again:

"Finally, as far as Pope John Paul II removing restrictions on married priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches in America is concerned, [b]your comment is in error[/b], because when the Ruthenian Metropolia sent its particular Church canons to Rome, [b]the Pope rejected the canons permitting married priests[/b], and said that the Metropolia would have to request a specific dispensation every time it wanted to ordain a married man as a presbyter."

Sadly the Ruthenian Metropolia has accepted this restriction, even though it is contrary to our tradition, but happily the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church simply ignore Rome on this issue and ordain married men without requesting any dispensations from the Curia.

[Apotheoun]

The article linked below is a good read, and should help a Western Christian to understand better the synodal ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox):

[url="http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/church_studies/reese/ec/ec-9fahey.htm"][u]Eastern Synodal Traditions: Pertinence for Western Collegial Institutions[/u][/url]

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1787313' date='Feb 21 2009, 10:01 AM']As I said before, you tend to see only what you want to see when you read my posts, because I have denied already that such a dispensation (i.e., from the prohibition that was forced upon the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America back in the 1920s) was offered. So let me repeat what I said again:

"Finally, as far as Pope John Paul II removing restrictions on married priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches in America is concerned, [b]your comment is in error[/b], because when the Ruthenian Metropolia sent its particular Church canons to Rome, [b]the Pope rejected the canons permitting married priests[/b], and said that the Metropolia would have to request a specific dispensation every time it wanted to ordain a married man as a presbyter."

Sadly the Ruthenian Metropolia has accepted this restriction, even though it is contrary to our tradition, but happily the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church simply ignore Rome on this issue and ordain married men without requesting any dispensations from the Curia.[/quote]

Two things, how is rejecting the requirement of getting a dispensation before ordaining NOT disobedience. The Eastern Church still must submit to the Supreme Pontiff. AND If it IS disobedience, how can you morally advocate such action?

Also: I said I don't know the content of said dispensation that was offered. I'll find out more information in the next couple days and get you exact sources. It could be that the Ruthenians did not meet the requirements the Pope asked for, so the fact that the Ruthenians got the request denied does not deny the offer of a dispensation. Please provide a source for the Ruthenians requesting and getting denied.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1787374' date='Feb 21 2009, 12:17 PM']Two things, how is rejecting the requirement of getting a dispensation before ordaining NOT disobedience. The Eastern Church still must submit to the Supreme Pontiff. AND If it IS disobedience, how can you morally advocate such action?[/quote]
It is only disobedience if one accepts the false idea that the Pope governs the Eastern Catholic Churches as he governs the Roman Church, but of course – as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, who is also a successor of St. Peter, has pointed out on several occasions – the Pope does not govern the Eastern Churches.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

tionif, you are off topic. if you have anything to say about the relations of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, you may do so. I will remove any more off-topic posts in this thread. If you wish to criticize the teachings of the Church regarding salvation being offered exclusively through her (in visible and in potentially invisible ways, in known ways and potentially in unknown ways), start another thread please.

[Apotheoun]

I am in general agreement with what Aloysius said in the post below, which is from a thread that discussed the possible restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the SSPX, because I believe that what he said in that post summarizes in a fairly accurate manner the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches:

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1773657' date='Feb 5 2009, 11:38 PM']off topic a bit, but, the Eastern Churches are called "sui juris" for a reason: they are (at least meant to be) totally self-governing. Following roughlly the model of the first millenium, the Pope is to be simply an ultimate guarantee for unity, the final appeal when an issue cannot be resolved by the individual Church. ie, the Pope does not micro manage the Eastern Churches and in ordinary circumstances is not even to be directly involved in them; he is to be the first amoung equals (the other patriarchs who are within their own Churches equal in position and power to the pope as the pope is within his own Church) and the place of ultimate appeal to guarantee unity in extra-ordinary circumstances

pretty much all the Churches are complete in and of themselves with their own "pope"-- their patriarch, and run smoothly. the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, however, consider Rome to be the ultimate mediator when something cannot be resolved otherwise. Thus Peter guarantees unity without really being "in charge" of the other patriarchs.[/quote]

Edited February 21, 2009 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

The Pope is the [b]supreme[/b] authority in the Church and has jurisdiction over *all* Christians. This power is immediate and does not need to be ratified by an Eastern Patriarch or Synod.

To demonstrate the authority of the Pope consider the following: If all the bishops in the world gathered in a council and unanimously declared X, but the Pope rejected X and declared Y, the Pope's authority *over rides* that of the bishops. So it is wrong to say the Pope is an [i]equal[/i] to any Patriarch, or to speak of the Church as if it were a confederacy of self governing churches each with their own "pope."

Christ established *one* Church and *one* office to possess the supreme authority of the Keys.

[Aloysius]

The Pope has supreme authority, but ought not to excercise it except in extra-ordinary circumstances when it comes to the Eastern sui juris Churches.

He is first among equals in a big sense.... his authority is intended to settle disputes and guarantee unity as the final arbiter, not the everyday governor.

You speak in a purely medieval understanding; my understanding is one which gives equal weight to the first millenium AND to the medieval teachings, IMHO. not only that, but it also follows much better from the scriptural teachings about the 12 Apostles over whom Peter had primacy but was also equal to them. the Council of Jerusalem makes much more sense with Peter as first among equals, with the potential to exercise supreme authority to guarantee unity but not with a regular micro-management of the Churches governed by the sees of other Apostles; ie other Patriarchs.

I don't think you'll find that what I say in any way contradicts any teachings about Papal authority in any of the 21 Ecumenical Councils (which I continue to believe ought to be seen as such by the Easterns) or any papal teachings medieval, ancient, or modern.

your view, on the other hand, is extremely disconnected from the first millenium model of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

The following statement was made by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch while he was attending the Synod of Bishops in Rome in September / October 2001:

[quote][b]H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria[/b]

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French][/quote]
Taken from the Vatican website: [url="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html"]The Holy See Press Office: SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM BULLETIN[/url]

[mortify]

Peace,

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787482' date='Feb 21 2009, 07:42 PM']The Pope has supreme authority, but ought not to excercise it except in extra-ordinary circumstances when it comes to the Eastern sui juris Churches.[/quote]

The Pope is not limited to when he can or can't exercise his supreme authority. If he sees an error in faith or morals, or decides to enact or loosen a certain discipline, he has the authority to do so without having to wait for the East to call on him, or needing the permission of an Eastern Synod to do so.

[quote]He is first among equals in a big sense.... his authority is intended to settle disputes and guarantee unity as the final arbiter, not the everyday governor.[/quote]

The Pope's role is *not* limited to being an arbiter in disputes.
[quote]You speak in a purely medieval understanding; my understanding is one which gives equal weight to the first millenium AND to the medieval teachings, IMHO. not only that, but it also follows much better from the scriptural teachings about the 12 Apostles over whom Peter had primacy but was also equal to them. the Council of Jerusalem makes much more sense with Peter as first among equals, with the potential to exercise supreme authority to guarantee unity but not with a regular micro-management of the Churches governed by the sees of other Apostles; ie other Patriarchs.[/quote]

I suggest you review Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3

[Apotheoun]

The following quotation is from an address on ecumenical issues delivered by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch Grégoire III Laham when he was visiting Holy Apostles Seminary (Cromwell, CT) back in 2002:

[quote]We must explain and clarify [to the Eastern Orthodox] the topics that are obstacles to our full communion: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, [b]Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils[/b] (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI), theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts (e.g., Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Theotokos, infallibility of the Pope of Rome).

[. . .]

Our path from Unia to Koinonia, in addition to the solution of the present stagnation of ecumenism, could be of great utility for the Church of Rome and for the Orthodox Churches. The last ones could understand that their future communion with the Church of Rome would not be according to the Unia conception, but in the framework of a spirit of Koinonia, which was the characteristic of East-West ecclesiological relations in the first Millennium, and was not only in two directions (from Rome and towards Rome), but multi-directional, between Rome and the Patriarchal and Metropolitan Sees, and between the last ones, from See to See, on all levels.

It is our future, it is the future of ecumenism, for the Church of Rome as well as for the Orthodox Churches.[/quote]

Edited February 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1786942' date='Feb 20 2009, 10:50 PM']It is not wrong to question the reverencing of a saint, especially since saints are not doctrinal or dogmatic and therefore not required to be believed by the Church.[/quote]

If a Saint has been canonized, then accepting that that person is a Saint is a matter of doctrine.

"With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the [b]canonizations of saints[/b] (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations." (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/i])

"Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

This is expressed unequivocally in the formula: 'Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trnitatis... auctoritate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra... Beatum N. N. Sanctum esse decernimus ac definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eum in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere'." (Congregation for the Causes of Saints, [i]New Procedures in the Rite of Beatification[/i])

Edited February 22, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

The Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) glorify their own saints.

[mortify]

The push for unity is overrated, in my opinion.

It's doing more harm than good.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1787516' date='Feb 21 2009, 08:00 PM']The Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) glorify their own saints.[/quote]

Canonizations have, without a doubt, reserved to the Pope since 1634.