Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Paul VI being a hypocrite


If Paul VI really loved the Orthodox he wouldn't have signed off on the Novus Ordo. No, "the spirit of Vatican II" was about working with Protestants to create a new church for a new, progressive space age, a church no longer Catholic. (Not the letter of the council.) That had nothing to do with the East; Catholic liberals don't care about the East. Some Orthodox opportunistically used the liberal version of the council ("You longer teach you're the true church? Great!") to promote their own claim ("dump some other doctrine, hand over the Uniates, and we'll receive you into the one, holy, Byzantine, and apostolic church in your orders, economically"). Understandable of them. Ecumenism's dead. Everybody knows the churches won't get back together/the Orthodox and the Protestants aren't coming back to the church. The Orthodox easily can but won't. Picture: Meeting Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem 50 years ago.

79 comments:

  1. Paul VI is the Hamlet of the Catholic Church.

    Neopelagianus

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, it is indeed strange to profess a love for the east, yet then turn around and formulate a new, Protestant liturgy and happily destroy the most ancient, Apostolic liturgy of the Church, the Roman rite. What is even more disheartening, is that almost no one protested.

    Personally, I think that under the present Pope Francis, the changes that are coming will make Vatican II look very traditionalist in retrospect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe the difference between Pope Paul VI and Pope Francis is the strength of their wills. I don't believe Pope Paul was the leader of the revolution after VII. He was weak willed and was used as a pawn of the revolutionaries like Bugnini. I do believe Pope Francis is the leader of the current revolution. He has a strong will and I believe will bulldoze anyone and anything who will get in the way of his agenda.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      I completely agree with you. This man, Francis, will bring in the true revolution. As I mentioned in another posting not too long ago, in the recent synod on the family the traditionalists are stupidly rejoicing, thinking they have won, but the truth is far from the case, it simply means that Francis knows who to get rid of. Soon he will replace all of his problems with his own men, and then the true revolution will start. It will be easy, now that the tradition has been completely destroyed, it will be easy to accomplish the rest. I also believe, but then again, I am old and cranky, that the up-coming persecution of traditionalists will make the petty persecutions in the 1970's look very tame indeed.

      It seems that Francis, who declared, "Who am I to judge," has never had a problem with judging traditionalists, actually accusing them of being godless on occasion.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe Pope Paul was the leader of the revolution after VII. He was weak willed and was used as a pawn of the revolutionaries like Bugnini. I do believe Pope Francis is the leader of the current revolution. He has a strong will and I believe will bulldoze anyone and anything who will get in the way of his agenda.

      True.

      As I mentioned in another posting not too long ago, in the recent synod on the family the traditionalists are stupidly rejoicing, thinking they have won, but the truth is far from the case, it simply means that Francis knows who to get rid of. Soon he will replace all of his problems with his own men, and then the true revolution will start.

      The church is indefectible, but, going out on a limb, I think this is possible, in which case "the revolution" wouldn't really be the church but a fraud and the See of Peter would become vacant. My Catholic Defcon 2: I'd go to the SSPX.

      Delete
  4. I'm curious under what reasoning the Orthodox could "easily" come "back".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To us, the Orthodox are estranged Catholics, not a different Christian faith. They meet our criteria for valid holy orders: basic credal orthodoxy, an unbroken claim to apostolic succession, and uninterrupted true teaching about the Eucharist. Put simply, unlike Protestants, you have real bishops so you have the Mass. All of your defined doctrine is true: the first seven ecumenical councils. We both believe in God, Christ, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the Mother of God, bishops, the Mass, and the option of using images. So Orthodox being received into Catholicism is relatively very easy: it's a matter of accepting that our post-schism definitions of doctrine are compatible with Byzantine theology, including believing that the Pope has a share in the church's charism of infallibility, so for the past 1,000 years Western Catholicism has had real sacraments and real saints.

      This doesn't mean reconciled Orthodox would have to become like latinized Greek Catholics. Mother church offers both the unlatinized and latinized forms of the Byzantine Rite, the latter largely developed by Greek Catholics themselves, which they are often very attached to.

      "Ecumenist" is a putdown among Orthodox, due to your xenophobia and nationalism/ethnocentrism, but liberal Protestant-style relativism/indifferentism is rare in the East. The only real difference between your ecumenists and your hardliners is the ecumenists recognize our sacraments. These ecumenists and their volunteer "partners" among us, the largely convert "Orthodox in communion with Rome" Greek Catholics who dominate Eastern Catholic online fora (a minority among Greek Catholics, most of whom just like most of you are ethnics born into it), say and want the same thing: we Catholics can "easily come back." All we'd have to do is dump our post-schism doctrine, etc., as I wrote in the original post.

      Delete
    2. John you stated the following: "[L]iberal Protestant-style relativism/indifferentism is rare in the East"; perhaps rare, but not unknown. The recent push, mostly by Konvertzi, to reject original sin, the Atonement, and Satisfaction consigning such truths to the theological dust-bin is very much an embrace of liberal Protestantism. Why Roman Catholics often misjudge the inroads of liberalism within Byzantine Orthodoxy is because it is hidden beneath a veneer liturgical conservatism. But it is most certainly there.

      Of course, before one gets all cozy and self-satisfied, in the West most of Roman Catholics have not only theologically fallen under the spell of Protestant theological liberalism, they have also done so liturgically as well.

      Delete
  5. Erm did I say that?

    Anyway, you really think that cautiousness about western original sin, substitutionary atonement (necessity of divine satisfaction) is a covert import by liberal protestants?

    Firstly, you find these things just the same among eastern Catholics, and converts tend to on the very conservative end of the spectrum (why convert to this weird sect if you're liberal?), So why would they be importing liberalism, which is not even in line with protestant orthodoxy?

    No, this theory doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all converts are from the conservative end of the Protestant spectrum; perhaps in the United States that may be true, but I have personally known several fairly liberal Protestant converts. Madame Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, and her theology was very, very much within the realm of a Byzantine rite liberal theologian; including support for women's ordination.

      The Konvertzi rejection of original sin and their dismissal of St Augustine are very much within the realms of liberal Protestantism.

      John, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.

      Delete
    2. Here are some examples, from the Byzantine Orthodox liturgical tradition, that support the horrible "western" concept of Satisfaction:

      From the pre-communion prayers: .... "Thou didst offer Thyself on earth as a sacrifice to Thy Father, Who accepted Thine immolation as that of a blameless lamb; by Thy Blood Thou didst hallow the whole world ..."

      The regularly prayed prayer of the 6th Hour reads: "O God and Lord of powers, and Maker of all creation, who through the compassion of Thy incomprehensible mercy sent down Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for the salvation of our race, and through his precious Cross tore up the record of our sins, and by it triumphed over the principalities and powers of darkness..."

      The Akathist Hymn includes this verse: "Wishing to give discharge / From ancient debts / The one who releases all mankind from their debts / Made His home of His own will / With those who had left the home of His grace, /And having torn up the record, / He hears from all, / Alleluia!"

      For the Konvertzi to reject such doctrines as well as original sin, are indeed examples of a creeping Protestant Liberalism.

      Delete
    3. Erm, did I say that?

      As you've probably figured out, Dale wrote "John, you stated the following" to me. As this blog's sidebar says above my picture, my given name is John.

      The konvertzi rejecting such doctrines as well as original sin are indeed examples of a creeping Protestant liberalism.

      Orthodox apologists: trying so hard to deny they're really Catholic that they end up sounding Pelagian about original sin and Lutheran about the Eucharist, even going against Orthodox liturgical texts, which are Catholic. And joining the World Council of Churches: the enemy of my enemy is my friend (cf. "better the turban than the mitre").

      Delete
    4. Yes, John, I did figure out that it was another John! But my contention remains, which I am certain you will agree with, that the Orthodox have very much adopted, especially with regards to original sin etc. a very, very liberal Protestant interpretation; which is not at all justified either by the Tradition or by liturgical texts, it is simply part of that great war on the "West."

      Delete
    5. Finally, a reading of St Athanasius will not support the modern Byzantine rejection of original sin or of the theology of the Atonement.

      Also, S Basil, expresses that the purpose of the tree of knowledge was that "our obedience might be tested'; S Gregory Nazinazus envisages the whole race as participating in Adam's sin and fall, and expressly claims as his own the weakness which the primal man displayed in the garden; and S Gregory of Nyssa, after saying that we wear skins "as if Adam lived in used," adds that men ought to ask for forgiveness daily since they share in Adam's fall (J.N.D. Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines" 350).

      Delete
    6. This looks like a bit of a grab bag of the usual misconceptions about orthodox teachings.

      Orthodox accept that we have fallen with Adam. What orthodox don't accept is that this emparts actual guilt. So all those quotes really are no issue for us. It's the guilt party which is objectionable. The Pelagian accusation falls down for the same reason. Pelagius taught we are neutral moral agents which has nothing to do with orthodoxy, which teaches we are fallen.

      Concerning satisfaction, you haven't grasped the difference between various sacrificial theories. I realise this is tricky for those steeped in western thinking, but it has to be done if you want to grasp the issues at hand. Quotes about sacrifices, blameless lambs, and so forth, are of course no issue for orthodox theologians (it is of course biblical language. Did you think orthodox don't read their bibles?). As for debts in the Akathist hymns, well yes, but debts to whom? 

      …he means that the devil held possession of it, the bond which God made for Adam, saying, “In the day thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt die.” (Genesis 2:17.) This bond then the devil held in his possession. And Christ did not give it to us, but Himself tore it in two, the action of one who remits joyfully.

      St. John Chrysostom, 6th homily on Colossians)

      Just because you believe in sacrifices, debts paid, blood shed for the world, sacrifice for sins, etc, doesn't mean you believe in a Anselm style system of satisfaction.

      Delete
    7. Sophistry.

      Orthodoxy = Catholicism - 20 IQ points + ethnocentrism/caesaropapism/Erastianism.

      Delete
    8. Actually, I have a Candidatus in Orthodox theology from St Serge in Paris, so John, do not play these types of games with me. I have posted Byzantine liturgical text, not by the Greek Catholic ones, hich supported completely the concept of Satisfaction and payment of a debt, and now you are doing the typical song-and-dance...it is tiresome.

      Next you are going to say that St Peter Mohilya was some sort of Roman Catholic heretic, although his Orthodox Catechism was accepted by all the eastern Patriarchates.

      Once again, there has indeed been a major "development of doctrine" within Byzantine Orthodoxy, and a vast change within the last fifty years; fueled by a pathetic, and stupid, anti-western bigotry which is, well, heretical.

      Delete
    9. Orthodoxy is ethnocentric? Are you serious? I guess you hadn't done the rounds of the various branches of Catholicism, Melkites, Ukrainian Catholics etc. There is no group more ethnocentric than Catholics. And if we talk about the Latin rite, how ethnocentric is it of them to enforce Latin rite ethnicities on eastern rite prlasts in the US?

      Payment of a debt? I'll ask it again though, debt to whom? According to Chrysostom it's a debt to Satan. Is it your position that Chrysostom was wrong and late medieval Catholics finally figured it out?

      Delete
    10. John, no Catholic bishop would declare as did the Archbishop for the Greeks in the United States that being Orthodox has something to do with having Greek DNA:

      http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_a3fa9e52-d9ab-11df-8f8e-001cc4c03286.html

      Or the former Archbishop of Athens who declared: "Orthodoxy is Hellenism and Hellenism is Orthodoxy." The was reechoed only recently by Metropolitan Sotirios of Canada.

      You seem to miss the point, in the Catholic Church there is a home for all ethnic and apostolic traditions, your sect only has one: Byzantine.

      Your denomination even went so far as to seek to destroy all of the traditions of the eastern church as well. One may notice that the Copts, Syrians, Ethiopians, and Armenians have nothing to do with holy Byzantium either. You attempted to destroy all of their traditions through the strong arm of the Byzantine Empire; and set-up false GREEK Orthodox patriarchates in their territory.

      You are also playing fast and easy with history, as you do with theology by the way, does the Byzantine Church have a way to change theology and even ecclesial government? Yes, it is called the Emperor. Have you forgotten that an Emperor had the power to actually suppress the Patriarchate of Russia, and another, Stalin, to reestablish it?

      Also, the Ecumenical Patriarch has never clarified his statements as you have stated; but he happily gave the title of archon to several pro-abortionist Greek-American politicians, well, because they are Greek. My favorite was declaring that Dukakis was a "Greek Orthodox in good standing" even when he as a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church, a member of St John's in Washington, D.C.

      John, you need to go and sell your song-and-dance to those who are unaware and willing to buy the innuendos, half-truths, and out-right lies you are selling.

      Delete
    11. "Archbishop for the Greeks in the United States that being Orthodox has something to do with having Greek DNA:"

      He said it has something to do with HIS PARISH.

      Have you been to a Lebanese Catholic Melkite church lately? I have, and one look at the faces says DNA is the only factor going on in membership.

      I like to tell a little joke, that the people in my part of the world are the only ones who speak English without an accent. The difference between you and me is that I KNOW it's a joke. You on the other hand can't see that your Latin version of Christianity is highly western and Latin, and don't realise how ethnic it is to all the other churches in Christendom.

      Nobody here has commented either on all the forced latinisations Rome has imposed on the Eastern rites. Because its an embarrassment, right? The history of the church since the late 1st millennium until now has been a series of fights whereby Rome won't respect the traditions of the East.

      What about the actions of the Emperor? When he held Pope Vigilius in chains until he would repent of heresy, was that ok with you? Or would you rather undo the 5th ecumenical council, allow the pope to go on with his heresy, and now reverse accepted catholic dogma? Nah, didn't think so. So no more talk of Emperors, ok?

      The Emperor suppressed the patriarchates of Russia? What's that got to do with establishing dogma? And a few times, secular rulers have had the power to, and pondered abolishing the papacy. Is that relevant?

      And yes Barthomelew did clarify it. He said "But there are situations of extreme distress when abortion can be a lesser evil, as, for example, when the life of the future mother is in danger.”"

      Want to talk about how many US politicians are pro-choice and Catholic in good standing? Didn't think so.


      Delete
  6. Fogey, there's a difference though. Catholics have a mechanism to change^h^h^h^h^h erm..... Refine and expand their doctrine, whereas orthodox do not. That's why you could have bishops pre Vatican I swearing on oath that papal infallibility was a protestant accusation and plot, right up until the point it became official doctrine.

    Orthodox don't have a mechanism to do an about face like that. So it's not so easy.

    And while some orthodox may recognise Catholic sacraments, the official orthodox view is Cyprianic, so they are being quite speculative at best within orthodox Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and no. Ofttimes the Orthodox will declare that they only accept the doctrines of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and that nothing can be added, or developed, to the Faith not enshrined in those councils; yet, Palamism is not found any place in the Councils, but the Orthodox seem to accept his doctrines as part of their Doctrinal positions in modern times so, yes, the Orthodox do in practice have a development of doctrine in place as well.

      Delete
    2. Never ever seen any orthodox claiming that all doctrine is in the seven councils. Can you point me to any examples?

      Also whatever you might think of orthodox doctrinal development, there is no procedure for it. So you'd have to wait for the holy spirit to move everyone at once. That's different to what goes on in Rome, where a pope with a bee in his bonnet can change everything.

      Delete
    3. That's different to what goes on in Rome, where a pope with a bee in his bonnet can change everything.

      Except he can't.

      The Orthodox have sold out on contraception as well as divorce and remarriage.

      Delete
    4. John, once again, you are doing the Orthodox back-step. Palamism is a perfect example of the development of doctrine, it is actually a byzantinization of a from of Muslim Sufism that infiltrated Byzantine Orthodoxy and now even has its own Sunday. It is unknown amongst all other ancient Christian communities, both Rome and the Oriental Orthodox have no knowledge of this really quite bizarre and novel teaching.

      Delete
    5. Young Fogey, if it had only been contraception and divorce and remarriage that the Byzantine Orthodox have sold out on! They have also sold out on abortion as well, here is a direct quote from the present Patriarch of Constantinople:

      "Asked the Orthodox church’s position on abortion, Bartholomais described a stand more liberal than that of the Roman Catholic Church, which condemns abortion in all cases and whose clergy have, in some cities, excommunicated leading pro-choice Catholics.

      Although the Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, ”generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,” Bartholomais said, the church also ”respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples.”

      ”We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he said. ”We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.”

      http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch

      Pretty horrifying. The Ecumenical Patriarch has also given the title of Archon to several Greek-American politicians with 100% rating from Planned Parenthood as well. And one can see on youtube their American ethnarch actually grovelling before President Obama and calling him the 'New Alexander"; it is quite sickening.

      Delete
    6. John, please see this web site, official, that does indeed state that the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church is tied to the councils. Surprised that you did not know this actually:

      http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-councils

      Delete
  7. Dale, the ridiculous claim you made was that orthodox only recognise the seven councils as sources of doctrine. Not only does that link say no such thing, it actually flat out contradicts it.

    Fogey, bishops were teaching openly that papal infallibility was a protestant myth before Pius IX got a bee in his bonnet and commanded everyone to sign off on it.

    I don't accept there is any sell out on contraception, but if there is, Rome's support of NFP is an even more explicit and bold rejection of tradition.

    Divorce and remarriage, are you serious? The orthodox rules date from Justinian's time, and there is no record of any pope objecting to it, why the complaint now? This is effectively signed off on by Rome. I'll tell you what is a complete farce, it's Catholic teaching that you can be married 20 years, have 6 kids, then Rome will tell you it is annulled and never happened. That is offensive.

    Development: I didn't say if development takes place, I said there is no procedure for just willing New doctrine into existence. Unlike Plus Ix who willed infallibility into existence against everyone's advice.

    Palamism: not sure what aspect you are objecting to as it seems scriptural to me. If there's a problem, why does Rome support eastern Catholics teaching it?

    Concerning what that patriarch said about abortion, he clarified in other interviews that he was talking about in the case whet the mother's life is at peril. Still, the patriarch is not an eastern pope. Orthodox don't hang of his every word as defined dogma. I could quote eastern Catholic patriarchs who say papal infallibility is a total nonsense. What about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm serious. "Sometimes adultery's OK" is sloppy theology.

      I could quote eastern Catholic patriarchs who say papal infallibility is a total nonsense. What about that?

      The first Eastern Europeans and Eastern Christians I knew, Ukrainians who chose to take their church underground, risking martyrdom, and later exile in America instead of denying papal infallibility, etc., would have beat the sh*t out of you if you'd said that to their faces.

      I don't believe in a God who says the Irish, the Poles, the Italians, the Latin-Americans, et al. are outside the church, all in prelest and probably going to hell. If Orthodoxy's true, God's one sick f*ck.

      Delete
    2. It is completely laughable that the other John can write that Catholicism is more ethnocentric than Eastern Orthodoxy. When I first explored Eastern Orthodoxy I was told by a Greek Orthodox priest that I wouldn't like his parish because it was for Greeks. I sometimes attend a Ukrainian Catholic parish. The priest who is a native Ukrainian always makes me feel welcome there and wants me to become a member of his parish. I know this is anecdotal, but seriously I don't see how anyone can write with a straight face that Catholics are more ethnocentric than Eastern Orthodox.

      I agree with you Young Fogey, that it would be a sick joke if the Church was limited to Slavs and Greeks with a miniscule amount of non-Slav or Greek converts. The Eastern Orthodox are basically rump national churches. They are all losing members, even the mighty ROC, due to either demographics or indifference. The Catholic Church may not be doing that well in the west right now, but we have been growing every year in Africa. I can't see the Eastern Orthodox making headway there, due to the ethnocentrism in EOxy.

      Anthony

      Delete
    3. John you stated: "Dale, the ridiculous claim you made was that orthodox only recognise the seven councils as sources of doctrine. Not only does that link say no such thing, it actually flat out contradicts it."

      Really? How about this:

      "In the Orthodox Church only seven such councils, some of which were actually quite small in terms of the number of bishops attending, have received the universal approval of the entire Church in all times and places. These councils have been termed the Seven Ecumenical Councils(see table below).

      The dogmatic definitions (dogma means official teaching) and the canon laws of the ecumenical councils are understood to be inspired by God and to be expressive of His will for men. Thus, they are essential sources of Orthodox Christian doctrine."

      ca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-councils

      John, do you really just make this stuff up as you go along?

      Delete
    4. ""Sometimes adultery's OK" is sloppy theology."

      Gee, I seem to remember Jesus saying something about "except for adultery". Sloppy huh?

      "I don't believe in a God who says the Irish, the Poles, the Italians, the Latin-Americans, et al. are outside the church, all in prelest and probably going to hell. If Orthodoxy's true, God's one sick f*ck."

      But... what? You do believe a God who says the Russians, Greeks, Serbs, Romanians are outside, is it?

      "I sometimes attend a Ukrainian Catholic parish. The priest who is a native Ukrainian always makes me feel welcome there and wants me to become a member of his parish."

      That's great. The Ukrainian Orthodox priest in the church around the corner was super-welcoming of me too, and I'm not Ukrainian (or anything similar). We can exchange anecdotes all day.

      "It would be a sick joke if the Church was limited to Slavs and Greeks with a miniscule amount of non-Slav or Greek converts."

      What.. because Orthodoxy has 300 million members and Catholicism 1200 million. If you want to say you're bigger, yeah, you're bigger. If that floats your boat.

      "The Catholic Church may not be doing that well in the west right now"

      No, you're not. But we'll ignore that, shall we?

      "we have been growing every year in Africa."

      I think you've got 150 million, and we've got 30 million. Not sure where you get your growth figures, maybe another case of quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

      ""In the Orthodox Church only seven such councils, some of which were actually quite small in terms of the number of bishops attending, have received the universal approval of the entire Church in all times and places. "

      And pray tell, where does it say that they are the ONLY source of doctrine?

      Zzzzz.

      Delete
  8. Two comments, if I may:

    First, on Orthodoxy and the "development of doctrine," see this article:

    http://www.academia.edu/1121332/_The_Orthodox_Rejection_of_Doctrinal_Development_

    It is written by a Catholic, true, but it seems fair, balanced - and accurate.

    Secondly, it is not historically accurate to claim "Divorce and remarriage, are you serious? The orthodox rules date from Justinian's time, and there is no record of any pope objecting to it, why the complaint now? This is effectively signed off on by Rome. I'll tell you what is a complete farce, it's Catholic teaching that you can be married 20 years, have 6 kids, then Rome will tell you it is annulled and never happened. That is offensive."

    The last two sentences are simply ignorant, and about them 'll say nothing more than quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur - which is not to say that annulments grated on psychological bases (such as "immaturity") have not been abused greatly, mostly in the USA and Canada. About the first two sentences, while they are so historically inaccurate as to amount to ignorance as well, I will respond by pointing out that marriage-in-church had no "legal standing" in Roman Law until the 720s, when it became a recognized alternative to civil marriage, and it was not until ca. 895 that civil marriage was abolished by the Emperor Leo VI's Novella 89, after which time the church became the only institution legally competent to effect matrimony. The Byzantine Church simply refused to incorporate Justinian's decree (Novella 117) into church practice. The first recognition by the Byzantine Church of divorce with the possibility of remarriage came in Canon 87 of the Council in Trullo, and that only in the case of the wives of soldiers who have been captured and imprisoned, and so perhaps to be presumed dead. Patriarch Photios' Nomocanon in 14 Titles (883) affirmed the indissolubility of marriage, but also listed without comment the causes for divorce introduced by Justinian's legislation (as modified by Emperor Basil I's "Basilica"). It was not until the Synod of Constantinople in 920 (the purpose of which was to settle the schism caused by the Emperor Leo VI's fourth marriage in ca. 905) accepted the Nomocanon in 14 Titles in its Tome of Union that the Byzantine Church accepted the legitimacy of "church remarriage" in those cases set forth in Justinian's edict, an acceptance confirmed and solidified by the granting to ecclesiastical tribunals in 1086 exclusive competence for the examination and resolution of marriage cases.

    (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That marriage in church had not _superior_ legal standing or _different_ legal standing to any other marriage is irrelevant.... and irrelevant.

      That the church didn't recognise legal divorces, all I can say is quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

      If, per se, the church had never heard of such thing, it would be quite odd if a council of all the east's bishops at Trullo signed off on it, without controversy.

      But even if we accepted your rather a-historical theory on it, apparently Rome didn't object to this aspect of Trullo until... Florence?? 750 years, or three-quarters of a millennium is a rather delayed reaction, even in the lethargic halls of St Peter's, don't you think?

      BTW, since Trullo specifies that a person on their 2nd marriage, or a person married to a divorced person, can't be bishop, or deacon, that tells us that the church was full of people that fit that description, and their only censure was that the holy orders were off limits to them. And the bishop of Rome, said not a word about it!!!

      BTW, since the original thesis of this article was that it was "easy" for the eastern orthodox to rejoin Rome, how would you suggest that the eastern churches, with many many remarried couples, could ever be a part of a reunified church? The obvious answer is that they couldn't, which is why this issue is an even much bigger issue than papal infallibility and supremacy, because this issue is simply insoluble without ROME changing its stance.

      Delete
  9. (continued)

    (My source for much of the above is "Separation, Divorce, Dissolution of the Bond, and Remarriage:Theological and Practical Approaches of the Orthodox Churches," by Archbishop Cyril Vasil, S.J. [Secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Oriental Churches] in the just-published *Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church* ed. Robert Dodaro, O.S.A. [San Francisco, 2014: Ignatius Press]. This is a subject into which I have been looking for some years; Archbishop Vasil's account is the most cogent which I have found, but it is congruent with the information which I have gathered on the subject prior to its appearance.)

    As to "there is no record of any pope objecting to it, why the complaint now?," I am not sure that this is accurate. There were certainly objections from the Latin side to the Eastern practice at the Council of Florence, although they appear to have been glossed over in that council's reunion decree. Later unions of Eastern churches (and not only those of the Byzantine tradition*) with Rome all resulted in these "uniate" churches accepting (some spontaneously, others at Rome's direction) the "Roman position" on divorce-and-remarriage.

    *My knowledge of the theory and practice of the non-Byzantine eastern churches on this subject is sketchy, but my impression is that all the Oriental Orthodox churches, with the exception of the Armenians allow divorce-and-remarriage only and exclusively in the case of adultery. The Armenians may admit other causes as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I could quote eastern Catholic patriarchs who say papal infallibility is a total nonsense. What about that?"

    You seem to specialize in claims to which the only appropriate response is, again, "quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Take a look what this Eastern Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby says about the "pseudo council" called Vatican I:

    http://catholics-against-papal-infallibility.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/vatican-i-pseudo-council.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a patriarch, and that there are Catholic bishops who are dissenters, even if they are in Byzantine garb, is not news. I really don't care what he thought.

      Council or pseudo-council, Vatican I is the product of a par­ticular Church, the Latin, that "cut off from the East, has seen its spirituality and theology dried up and impoverished by rationalization."

      "Rationalization" is how the schismatics, like the heretics, sold out on contraception last century. The church is what it always was, as Newman observed reading the fathers.

      Therefore Vatican I is not an ecumenical council, nor consequently, infallible.

      Byzantine garb doesn't necessarily mean small-o orthodoxy; sad for me to realize as my first fully small-o orthodox Catholic liturgy was with the Ukrainians. If he really wrote that, he should have been thrown out on his ear.

      "Catholics Against Papal Infallibility" usually really means "Catholics Against Church Infallibility," which really means "'Catholics' Who Want the Church to Approve Their Invalid Marriage, Contraception, or Same-Sex Marriage." You can disguise that in a Byzantine crown, brocade, and a cloud of sweet incense, but it's still crap.

      Delete
  12. Oh come on fogey, you're acting more like an old fogey, than a modern day son of Rome. When Florence said that nobody, including unbaptised babies would ever see the beatific vision, I'm sure they would have consigned to the pit of hell the bishops of Vatican II who said we can't condemn the unbaptised children, and muslims and other sincere people, because God looks after them blah blah. Today's heresy in Rome, is tomorrow's ecumenical concession. Who knows where France is going with his recent comments that he can't judge homosexuals, and that its not the church's place to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

    ReplyDelete
  13. John, are you searching for your Greek DNA to prove your Orthodoxy? Just asking.

    You do so much song-and-dance that it is really quite fun to watch.

    Tell me, in your denomination if an Italian, German, Englishman or woman, or even the Irish or any other ethnicity with an ancient Catholic tradition converts, do they not have to become Byzantine? So much for your vaunted catholicity.

    Do tell me, how many non-Byzantine diocese exist in your denomination? Oh, I already know the answer...none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know how many "western rite diocese" there are. I know of at least 4 parishes under our bishop, and I know of a few under other bishops. It's not "none", that's for sure.
      In answer to your question of what happens if an Irishman converts, I imagine the same thing happens as in your church, they take a pick of the available parishes, and whatever rites they practice. Unless they want want to become a priest, and get a blessing to start a new parish. What is your point, O argumentative one?

      Delete
    2. John, in the Catholic church if a Russian or a Greek converts, they keep their own liturgical traditions. The so-called western rite is a well known joke that is a well-known bait-and-switch. Once again, how many non-Byzantine diocese do you have? How many Coptic rite ones, or Syraic ones? A few parishes that have a temporary western use means nothing (and even your so-called western rite is so Byzantinized that calling it western is, well, a joke), they can and have been changed to the Byzantine rite at the whim of a bishop. And you have the audacity to state that your denomination is less ethnocentric than Rome? Can we all laugh out loud? O fantasy land one...

      Delete
    3. There are Catholics using the Russian typicon? I find that hard to believe, I await your proof.

      You think the orthodox western rites are too Byzantine? Perhaps, but when I look at eastern Catholic churches with stained glass windows, beardless priests wearing western clerical collars, forced into western celibacy, run under the western canon law, I think to myself, no you don't have eastern rites so much as you have eastern ethnicities. At least we have the excuse that our western rites are scattered and difficult to integrate into Byzantine jurisdictions. It's not because we did what you did which is take fully functional western churches and forcibly change their traditions.

      Yes I guess a bishop *could* shut down a western rite parish. Anything * could* happen. But if you want to discuss that, we can talk about eastern Catholic canon law which says the pope has full, immediate and unlimited jurisdiction over eastern Catholic churches which he can always freely exercise. ( look it up if you want). So if the pope has a bad hair day, ALL of your eastern rite could come to an end.

      And if we look at the extensive latinization that went on, this in fact almost did happen, until that attitude was reversed (for now anyway, until the pope gets another bee in his bonnet).

      Delete
    4. +1, Dale.

      There are Catholics using the Russian typicon? I find that hard to believe, I await your proof.

      Nec Plus, Nec Minus, Nec Aliter: A Brief History of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church and the Russian Catholics.

      Mother church offers both the unlatinized Byzantine Rite (I've been to St. Michael's Russian Catholic Church in Manhattan and love it) and latinized versions, which the Ukrainian and other Byzantine Catholics came up with themselves. The Russian Catholic Church is mostly American non-Russians who love everything Russian and Orthodox except schism.

      Delete
    5. John, not young fogey, I can only deduce that you are truly, truly clueless. Here is the Russian Catholic church in Paris. Please note that you can access the service of the Panychida here as well and see that your summation of the Byzantine rite Catholics are indeed odd. By the way, outside of clerical celibacy, only a demand by the way in the United States all of the things you mention can be found amongst the Greek Orthodox as well:

      http://www.eglise-catholique-russe-paris.org/

      You may get back with me with your apology.

      Oh, here is a Greek Catholic service from Italy, these people have preserved their Byzantine rite for more than a thousand years; gee how many non-Byzantine rite churches do you have again?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcahKnm0ed4

      Delete
    6. Also John, in the 1970's there were over 10,000+ western rite Orthodox in Italy under the Moscow Patriarchate, they were told to adopt the Russian tradition or leave, they left rather than reject the heritage of their ancestors.

      In England the western rite parishes of Antioch were given the same ultimatum.

      You really are clueless.

      Delete
    7. I think the number of non-Byzantine patriarchs and dioceses in the one, holy, Byzantine, and Orthodox Church is approximately zero.

      Delete
    8. Oh, you may notice how communion is given in the Greek Catholic church in Italy; this is the truly ancient method, since the councils forbid giving communion with a "golden spoon."

      Delete
    9. I like the spoon but you make the point that not everything Eastern is old; the Byzantine Liturgy may have an ancient shape but it's as medieval as my Mass, the core of which, the Roman (Gregorian) Canon, is the second oldest anaphora still in use.

      Delete
    10. That's great if a few eastern Catholics have been able to preserve some of the traditions, but it's been a millennium long battle that never ceases. Back in the 10th century the Greeks in Italy came to the EP asking for help because the pope wanted to make them Latin. In retaliation, the EP forced some Latin parishes around Byzantium to become Byzantine, pending a federal of the popes decision. You and I both know the battles fought since then.

      I hope your not implying that all this is a US problem either. The synod of Sharfeh imposed celibacy on all Syrian Catholic churches for example.

      Nor is or limited to celibacy. Whether it be inclusion of the filioque into the liturgy, the church calendar (ash Wednesday), incorporation of confirmation vs chrismation etc, latinisation has been extensive and unrelenting.

      Not sure what you say can be found among the Greeks too. What happens from time to time is Rome comes in and latinises. They go too far, and the church has had enough. Then they return to the fold of orthodoxy, bringing some latinisation back with them. But it still comes back to Rome's bad behavior.

      Delete
    11. "I think the number of non-Byzantine patriarchs and dioceses in the one, holy, Byzantine, and Orthodox Church is approximately zero."

      So it should be zero, because we don't possess any of the traditional lands of the Latin rite. Sure, we could set up fake Latin patriarchs like you guys set up fake Byzantine ones, but to what end?

      Delete
    12. Which council forbids giving communion with a spoon?

      BTW, councils forbid withholding the cup from the laity, but that never stopped Rome doing it anyway. Sola Papa.

      Delete
    13. Nice try. The nicer among you recognize our sacraments, but while Catholicism includes the East (as teaching, not just opinion, we recognize your sacraments, and we have complete churches, patriarchs, dioceses and all, in traditional Eastern lands), Orthodoxy doesn't and never really will include the West, so count me out. Sviatoslav in the Ukraine, who calls himself a patriarch (an unofficial practice started by his predecessor last century, Josyf, who survived the gulag — the title's fine with me) because he leads the Ukrainian Catholic Church, may be any number of things but he's not a fake.

      Delete
    14. I have been to liturgies at St. Michael's in Manhattan numerous times over the past 30+ years, St. Andrew's in El Segundo, CA, twice, and Our Lady of Fatima (why not?) Russian Catholic Chapel in San Francisco, once - but never to SS Cyril & Methodius Russian Byzantine Community in Denver, CO (although I am acquainted with Fr. Chrysostom Frank, it pastor). They all follow the Russian typikon, or did when visited them in the 90s in the case of those in California.

      Delete
    15. Fake is in the eye of the beholder.

      You reckon we should set up a Russian bishop of Rome, huh? Then you would be happy?

      Delete
    16. Nine times out of ten, the Eastern Catholics have latinized themselves: the filioque, for example, which the Ukrainians' and Ruthenians' acts of union with Rome didn't require. The Ukrainians adopted it at their synod of Zamosc. Ukrainianness, at least its Catholic version (the heart of Ukrainian nationalism — sure, Catholics can be nationalistic, but we never lose sight of the church's universality, which is why the tsars and the Communists hated us so much), is a few Polishisms (being Catholic, a few Western church practices, and a language halfway between Russian and Polish) to show they're not Russian, but also a few Russianisms (the Greek Rite and the Cyrillic alphabet) to show they're not Polish.

      Rome has always encouraged the use of the unlatinized forms.

      Celibacy's just a discipline, not doctrine. The church has the authority to make it mandatory, in Western lands, for example, but shouldn't have imposed it on Eastern Catholics in North America, causing schisms to the Orthodox for no good reason, nothing to do with our teachings.

      Delete
    17. Russian Catholics: They all follow the Russian typikon, or did when visited them in the '90s in the case of those in California.

      St. Michael's is odd among them in that they use the Western date for Easter; I don't know why but I understand they'd be fine with using the Eastern date, as the Russian Catholic parishes in California do. In the tradition of nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter with which St. Pius X commissioned the Russian Catholic Church, in America they interpret their historical following of the Russian Orthodox Church's liturgical practice to the letter as following its designated successor, the OCA, so most use the Eastern paschalion and all use the Gregorian calendar ("revised Julian" in Orthodox-speak) for fixed-date feasts.

      Delete
    18. John, not fogey, you truly are clueless:

      Quinisext Council, Canon 101.

      101.

      The divine Apostle loudly proclaims the man created in the image of God to be a body of Christ and a temple. Standing, therefore, far above all sensible creation, and having attained to a heavenly dignity by virtue of the soterial Passion, by eating and drinking Christ as a source of life, he perpetually readjusts both his eternal soul and his body and by partaking of the divine grace he is continually sanctified. So that if anyone should wish to partake of the intemerate body during the time of a synaxis, and to become one therewith by virtue of transessencc, let him form his hands into the shape of a cross, and, thus approaching, let him receive the communion of grace. For we nowise welcome those men who make certain receptacles out of gold, or any other material, to serve instead of their hand for the reception of the divine gift, demanding to take of the intemerate communion in such containers; because they prefer soulless (i.e., inanimate) matter and an inferior article to the image of God. In case, therefore, any person should be caught in the act of imparting of the intemerate communion to those offering such receptacles, let him be excommunicated, both he himself and the one offering them.

      Delete
    19. You reckon we should set up a Russian bishop of Rome, huh? Then you would be happy?

      If you want to be even bigger jerks, in the "anti-" spirit of schism, than you are now by doing so (or a Greek, etc., bishop of Rome), knock yourselves out. You're not my problem.

      Delete
    20. Once again, John, where are all those non-Byzantine tradition parishes in your denomination?

      Also, I am still waiting for your explanation of the the Thursday Evening tone 3 on "Lord I have Cried" of the Prosomia of the Cross at Vespers:

      "Willingly you were fixed on the Tree, O supremely good, and offered as a sacrifice to the Father for our sake, and you ended the sacrifices of idols and abolished the might of the ill-intentioned, O King of the ages."

      Delete
    21. Finally, John, since I am not a Roman Catholic, what the Pope does or does not do is of no concern to me: but you made this contention: "BTW, councils forbid withholding the cup from the laity, but that never stopped Rome doing it anyway. Sola Papa."

      Obviously you are as ignorant of Roman Catholic theology as you are of Orthodox theology! The Roman Catholics believe in the doctrine of commixtio. Meaning that both the the Body and Blood are to be found in either species of the Holy Communion (this is a very ancient dogma that can be found in the commixtio prayers said in the old Roman rite after the canon of the mass, when a particle of the Body is intincted into the Blood); so although the chalice was removed, normally, but not always, from the Laity, to avoid the danger of spilling, because of this doctrine if one receives the Blood one also receives the Body, and if one receives the Body of Christ one also receives his Blood.

      Also, have you not been to a Roman Catholic church lately? The Chalice is shared with the Laity.

      I can only construe from your limited knowledge of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism that you are indeed simply a Byzantine rite Evangelical konvertzi bigot who has dragged your hatred of catholicity into your new religion.

      I thank God that the Orthodox seminary from which I received my degree was not simply a hate-filled wasteland that is so often found amongst the konvertzi, who are usually clueless and will buy into anything so long as it is anti-Catholic.

      Delete
    22. John, the Byzantines set up "fake" Greek Patriarchates in the lands of the Oriental Orthodox, this includes the GREEK Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. You really are not doing well in this conversation. It appears that most of what passes for your knowledge, is really not too much more than bigotry.

      Delete
    23. The Roman Catholics believe in the doctrine of commixtio. Meaning that both the the Body and Blood are to be found in either species of the Holy Communion.

      Yes; it's called concomitance.

      Delete
    24. "
      The young fogey11:31 pm
      The Roman Catholics believe in the doctrine of commixtio. Meaning that both the the Body and Blood are to be found in either species of the Holy Communion.

      Yes; it's called concomitance."

      Well... You've believed in that since it was pointed out that you were in gross violation of the canons and the fathers, and you needed a loophole.

      Delete
    25. "Dale11:04 pm
      John, the Byzantines set up "fake" Greek Patriarchates in the lands of the Oriental Orthodox, this includes the GREEK Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. You really are not doing well in this conversation. It appears that most of what passes for your knowledge, is really not too much more than bigotry."

      Some or all of these cases have a legitimate claim to be the real patriarchs because the Greek patriarchs date from the time of the respective splits. That's different to wandering in a millennium later.

      Delete
    26. Dale, Canon 101 refers to parishioners who would go along with their own receptical, for pious reasons, which is an issue we now are not faced with. It's not about intinction.

      What are you, if you're not Roman Catholic?


      Where are the non Byzantine parishes? I know where some are, because my priest has visited there. I can see other ones in Google, just like I'm sure you are capable if googling. Is there some point to this question?

      Yeah I know Rome now gives the chalice, but it also has to defend its past practices. And when the fathers condemned giving only the bread, they didn't append the exception "except if you believe in commixtio"!!! Which was fabricated as a get out of jail card on that issue.

      Delete
    27. "You reckon we should set up a Russian bishop of Rome, huh? Then you would be happy?"

      The farcical is always amusing, if that's what you mean, so go for it, please. To set up a "Russian bishop of Rome" would be merely to repeat the action of the Donatists, as described and mocked by Optatus of Milevis in ca. 370 in his *De Schismate Donatistarum;* cf. Marx's dictum about great historical events repeating themself, "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."

      Delete
    28. Catholicism historically has not not been adverse to having 2 or 3 bishops of Rome, hehe.
      How you know then whether you are in the true church, who knows. Since Unum sanctum said communion with the pope is essential for salvation, I guess you can flip a coin or something. Heads you go to be with Jesus. Tails you burn for eternity.

      Delete
    29. Ooh, it's the Orthodox! I'm SO scared. Or as Mark Twain put it, "All right, I'll GO to hell." I'd tell this troll John to run along but he's boosting my pageviews.

      Delete
    30. I can only construe from your limited knowledge of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism that you are indeed simply a Byzantine rite Evangelical konvertzi bigot who has dragged your hatred of catholicity into your new religion.

      I thank God that the Orthodox seminary from which I received my degree was not simply a hate-filled wasteland that is so often found amongst the konvertzi, who are usually clueless and will buy into anything so long as it is anti-Catholic.


      +1.

      Delete
    31. The following was stated: "That's great if a few eastern Catholics have been able to preserve some of the traditions, but it's been a millennium long battle that never ceases. Back in the 10th century the Greeks in Italy came to the EP asking for help because the pope wanted to make them Latin. In retaliation, the EP forced some Latin parishes around Byzantium to become Byzantine, pending a federal of the popes decision. You and I both know the battles fought since then."

      Actually, what the Greeks did to the Latins, in 1182, was to murder them by the thousands in what has become known as the "Massacre of the Latins." Across the Byzantine Empire the Latin parishes were ransacked by jeering Greek mobs who desecrated the Blessed Sacrament and murdered priests, nuns and bishops as well as tens of thousands of laity. (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-massacre-of-the-latins-1182).

      Of course, this pales in comparison to what the Byzantine Greeks did to the Syrian and Coptic Christians who refused to submit to them.

      Delete
    32. What does yet another story of churches wounding foreign churches prove Dale? All it proves to me is that any system of church governance where one man is given "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", that it's ripe for abuse. And when you define membership of Christ's flock, and indeed salvation itself in terms of communion with a despot, you have a crazy system.

      Delete
  14. Here are some more Byzantine Orthodox liturgical text proving the theology of atonement. I especially like the third one posted. Please John, waiting for your song and dance on that one as well. Perhaps the composers of Matins were western heretics?: John, before posting on Orthodox theology, perhaps it would help if you actually had a degree in the subject; these are all things I learnt as an Orthodox seminarian, but I am old and predate the deluge of nutter Liberal Protestant Konvertzi.

    From various services of daily Vespers and Matins:

    All creation has been sanctified by your Blood and by holy water, O only Long-suffering; while the rivers of polytheism were dried up and Adam has been saved from the fall, O Word, by your Crucifixion.

    Lover of humankind, who are above all honour, you were reviled for our sake, given vinegar to drink, and willingly endured the Cross, that by your death, O Benefactor, you might redeem us all from corruption.

    Willingly you were fixed on the Tree, O supremely good, and offered as a sacrifice to the Father for our sake, and you ended the sacrifices of idols and abolished the might of the ill-intentioned, O King of the ages.

    Like a lamb you were suspended on a tree and were offered as a sacrifice to the Father for our sake, O Good One, and you brought to an end the sacrifices of idols, O All-powerful

    We bow down before the divine stripes of your sufferings, Christ God, and royal sacrifice that took place divinely revealed in Sion at the end of the ages.

    To him who was nailed of his own will to the Cross and through the Cross freed the fallen from the ancient sentence, to him alone let us sing, for he has been glorified.

    You accepted a Cross, my Saviour, against the tree of knowledge, gall against sweet provender; while against the corruption of death you poured out your divine blood.

    The Lord of glory in a form without glory, of his own will is hung dishonoured on the tree and thus ineffably procured for me divine glory.

    You have changed my clothing for incorruption, O Christ, for incorruptibly you tasted in the flesh the corruption of death, and dawned from the grave on the third day.

    O Master Christ, by the blood which flowed from God being emptied from your immaculate and life-giving side sacrifice to idols has ceased, while we of all the earth offer you the sacrifice of praise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really have no idea whatsoever what you think these liturgical statements teach, that you think orthodox theology would object to. It would help if you stated what that point is clearly, and then quoted some orthodox source that you think is in disagreement. Until then, I have no idea.

      Delete
    2. John, you are so clueless that it is not worth my time...

      Delete
    3. Because we orthodox understand our own texts within our own theological system, we are clueless Dale? Even the worst heretic I would grant that courtesy!

      Delete
    4. Good Lord, "we Orthodox"? The Konvertzi are always laughable. I remember my mother coming home from liturgy fuming one Sunday going on about the idiot converts they were ordaining...things do not seem to have improved much.

      Gee John, how many weeks have these been "our texts"?

      Delete
    5. "How many weeks have these been "our texts"?

      Oh, about 75,000 or so.

      Delete

Leave comment