A French bishop denounced HB Gregorios

[Jaysuitical]

There have always been bishops on opposing sides of political issues.

 

[Peter_J]

Why Rome can do what they did? Rome has primacy which entails its supremacy and its bishop has the authority to do what he did.(Universal jurisdiction)

I’m still at a loss as to what you are talking about. Saying that the pope could turn a bishop over to the Melkite Synod is a pretty hefty affirmation of papal authority, non?

 

[Wandile]

Universal Jurisdiction is a tradition of the the Catholic Church. So if it contradicts any tradition, that “tradition” must be fictional

 

[SyroMalankara]

Universal Jurisdiction is a tradition of the the Catholic Church. So if it contradicts any tradition, that “tradition” must be fictional

Collegiality is also a Tradition of the Catholic Church, so according to you “universal jurisdiction” must be fictional. Why can’t many Latins deal with paradoxes or ‘unity without uniformity’ (aka diversity) without getting Pharisaical?

 

[malphono]

Tramples upon an fictional tradition, yeah.

So now it’s “fictional tradition” eh? I see. I should have known. Without Rome to guide us, we are nothing. I guess it’s time for us to get to the back of the bus where we belong.

But in reality, Universal jurisdiction of the Roman bishop is a tradition of the Roman church and the catholic church. It has been claimed by many popes from early times. But lets not derail the thread now. Fact of the matter is Rome actually has the authority to do what they did.

You may, of course, say what you wish, but while I will not respond further under any circumstances, I do not concede the point.

Well as far as the prophecies of the saints go, reunion is gonna happen without any theological concession from the Catholic Church.

Emotional much? he hasn’t taught heresy or tampered with the faith which is in keeping with his duty as a bishop. Disciplined, yes… Removed from his see? No…

Must be that “fictional tradition” rearing it’s ugly head again.

And now … as the late Friar David said more than once … on to the ignore list.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by malphono View Post
And in so doing, Rome tramples upon tradition, not to mention its own patronizing, and obviously empty and meaningless, words. But who cares? We’re only Orientals.

Forgive me for adding yet another reply to this post … but it’s hard not to since that first sentence is so weird.

I’m not claiming to be a mind-reader or anything, but did you mean to say something else like “No he didn’t trample upon a tradition” or perhaps “Yes he did, but he was within his rights to do so”? I’m just wondering b/c either of those would seem a little less weird.

 

[dzheremi]

Boy…I never thought I’d have reason to quote myself, but the exact same thought ran through my head again upon reading the latest exchange between Wandile and everyone else:

Isn’t it fun being in union with such understanding, humble, and loving Latins, you filthy Eastern heretics?

Welcome to (many Latins’ conception of) Rome, the eternal city/ecclesiological disease, where everything old is new again…

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Boy…I never thought I’d have reason to quote myself, but the exact same thought ran through my head again upon reading the latest exchange between Wandile and everyone else:

Welcome to (many Latins’ conception of) Rome, the eternal city/ecclesiological disease, where everything old is new again…

Indeed.

Once again, the real life implications of the Union of Brest continue to be a tragedy.

 

[Wandile]

Forgive me for adding yet another reply to this post … but it’s hard not to since that first sentence is so weird.

I’m not claiming to be a mind-reader or anything, but did you mean to say something else like “No he didn’t trample upon a tradition” or perhaps “Yes he did, but he was within his rights to do so”? I’m just wondering b/c either of those would seem a little less weird.

The former

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This has got to be the most dysfunctional thread I have yet encountered on these forums.

Can’t we let both bishops’ words and actions speak for themselves, and also let the Pope be Pope and Patriarchs be Patriarchs?

 

[Zekariya]

This has got to be the most dysfunctional thread I have yet encountered on these forums.

Can’t we let both bishops’ words and actions speak for themselves, and also let the Pope be Pope and Patriarchs be Patriarchs?

Some patriarchs (from Rome and Alexandria) are popes but all popes are patriarchs.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Some patriarchs (from Rome and Alexandria) are popes but all popes are patriarchs.

Aw, you know what I mean. Actually I’m not so sure the bishop of Rome is a patriarch, but in any case I meant “Pope” in the colloquial Western sense meaning the Roman Pontiff and “Patriarchs” as Eastern patriarchs (as opposed to the bishop of Rome or such actual Western patriarchs as the Patriarch of Venice).

My point is, why can’t we agree to recognize and respect each member of the hierarchy for what the Church teaches his authentic role is, rather than pitting different levels of authority against each other?

When the bishops themselves go after each other’s throats, of course, something obviously has gone wrong but the best thing for us laypeople to do will probably be to stay out of it, avoiding publicly taking sides as much as possible.

 

[Zekariya]

Aw, you know what I mean. Actually I’m not so sure the bishop of Rome is a patriarch, but in any case I meant “Pope” in the colloquial Western sense meaning the Roman Pontiff and “Patriarchs” as Eastern patriarchs (as opposed to the bishop of Rome or such actual Western patriarchs as the Patriarch of Venice).

My point is, why can’t we agree to recognize and respect each member of the hierarchy for what the Church teaches his authentic role is, rather than pitting different levels of authority against each other?

When the bishops themselves go after each other’s throats, of course, something obviously has gone wrong but the best thing for us laypeople to do will probably be to stay out of it, avoiding publicly taking sides as much as possible.

I agree with the gist of your argument. We should treat bishops with proper respect. However, HB Gregorios III is my patriarch. It would be one thing if a bishop attacked another bishop unrelated to me and I decided to take sides in a heated argument. However, laity should generally side with their bishop unless it is sinful to do so. And, to attack the spiritual father of the Melkite Church is to attack those who make up the Melkite Church. The laity are deeply connected to their bishop, patriarch, etc.

 

[malphono]

I agree with the gist of your argument. We should treat bishops with proper respect. However, HB Gregorios III is my patriarch. It would be one thing if a bishop attacked another bishop unrelated to me and I decided to take sides in a heated argument. However, laity should generally side with their bishop unless it is sinful to do so. And, to attack the spiritual father of the Melkite Church is to attack those who make up the Melkite Church. The laity are deeply connected to their bishop, patriarch, etc.

FWLIW, Gregory III is not my Patriarch, but nonetheless I’m repulsed by “Bishop X” and his vile remarks. It’s not so much the personal aspect, but rather that “Bishop X” would dare to publicly defame an eccelsiastical superior of whatever Church. This “Bishop X” was speaking purely, strictly, and stridently from one particular political viewpoint, and he has no right to publicly defame anyone, much less an ecclesiastical superior, because of it. He needs to be taught a lesson, and that won’t happen with the usual “slap on the wrist” disciplinary action.

 

[dzheremi]

Right. I’m not in communion with any of you, and I still think that this was a stupid thing to say, and would be happy to see the French bishop disciplined over it, not because it affects me or my communion personally, but because it would help set a good precedent, and I’d rather a healthy ecclesiology develop in the Roman communion than the current mess, which hurts the whole communion and individual people and churches in it. Really, haven’t Christians in Syria suffered enough?

 

[Zekariya]

FWLIW, Gregory III is not my Patriarch, but nonetheless I’m repulsed by “Bishop X” and his vile remarks. It’s not so much the personal aspect, but rather that “Bishop X” would dare to publicly defame an eccelsiastical superior of whatever Church. This “Bishop X” was speaking purely, strictly, and stridently from one particular political viewpoint, and he has no right to publicly defame anyone, much less an ecclesiastical superior, because of it. He needs to be taught a lesson, and that won’t happen with the usual “slap on the wrist” disciplinary action.

Right. I’m not in communion with any of you, and I still think that this was a stupid thing to say, and would be happy to see the French bishop disciplined over it, not because it affects me or my communion personally, but because it would help set a good precedent, and I’d rather a healthy ecclesiology develop in the Roman communion than the current mess, which hurts the whole communion and individual people and churches in it. Really, haven’t Christians in Syria suffered enough?

I agree! People patronize the Eastern Churches often enough. We don’t need them resorting to attacking our bishops on a whim.

 

[Christianity]

Oh my…I think this is very sad!