Define "Supremacy"

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAssisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
[It sounds to me like they didn’t have this freedom currently, and were asking for reassurance of these freedoms from Rome BEFORE the signing. Otherwise why accept Rome and the pope? They could stay where they are and enjoy all these, without any problem. Or could they? The Orthodox hands when it comes to persecution aren’t clean you know. We haven’t begun to examine you yet.]

What it shows is that once their lands had been conquered by Roman Catholic overlords they became second class citizens in their own land by remaining Orthodox.

They were asking for basic human rights like ringing bells, having processions, taking the Sacraments to the sick & dying, maintining their seminaries before signing the agreement to come directly under Roman Catholic authority. Obviously they were denied them as Orthodox. Otherwise why ask for them?

Regarding the formation of the Unia -

The Roman Catholics relaized that it was 1596 and the vast majority of the people were illerate. They could neither read nor write so they judged everything by what they saw and heard. They also knew the people were devoutly Orthodox and would never convert willingly to Roman Catholicism. So as long as everything looked the same & sounded the same they would never realize that they were no longer Orthodox but had become members of the Roman Catholic Church. After the Union was signed the local bishop was still commemorated in the Liturgy and the word ‘Pravoslavny’ (Orthodox) was also still used. So the average peasant had no idea what had gone on. The only place that the Pope was commemorated was in the Cathedral. People who questioned it there were initiatly told the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church!

The plan was to gradually latinize them until they became full fledged Roman Catholics. That is why today the Pope is telling them to get rid of the Latinizations.

Today after 400+ years they still don’t understand their relationship with Rome and still have a strong Orthodox identity. Some will even tell you they are ‘Orthodox In Communion with Rome’! Not one of them will ever admit they are under the authority of the Pope (which they are according to the code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). They still don’t quite understand what their theology is or is supposed to be. Example is a current discussion they are having on the Byzantine (Catholic) Forum regarding the Immaculate Conception -

byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001259;p=1

After threads like this in this particular forum which are a dime a dozen, I cannot but laugh when the accusation is made here and elsewhere that there is disunity within the Orthodox Catholic Church while because of the Pope the RCC has complete unity within its structure. Going by this type of discussion we have much more doctrinal unity within the various autocephallous and automonous Orthodox Catholic churches then there is within the Roman Catholic Church and its sui juis churches.

Orthodoc
 
Dear Father:

For the answer to this, you need only take up the writings of Pope John Paul on the importance of the healing of memories. The theological dialogue with the Roman Catholics has this as an ineluctable component of the dialogue.

I definitely agree with HH JP2. However the healing of memories necessitates a great measure of humility. The problem is that Orthodox (as evidenced by Orthodoc and others, including yourself) don’t seem to be willing to admit to any wrongdoing in the process. There have been Orthodox atrocities against Catholics, just as great as Catholic atrocities against Orthodox. But you paint a picture like the Orthodox atrocities never happened, and only Catholics were responsible for atrocities. You may think that what you are doing is aligned with HH JP2’s wishes, but your approach certainly does not come close to the spirit of those directives.

God bless,

Greg
 
Dear Orthodoc,

Today after 400+ years they still don’t understand their relationship with Rome and still have a strong Orthodox identity. Some will even tell you they are ‘Orthodox In Communion with Rome’! Not one of them will ever admit they are under the authority of the Pope (which they are according to the code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). They still don’t quite understand what their theology is or is supposed to be.

It’s understandable that since you don’t understand Catholic theology/ecclesiology, you would impose your own beliefs on others and assume that it is actually they who do not understand their own theology. LOL!!!

I hope Eastern Catholic members of this board will chime in to let you know that they indeed recognize that they are under the authority of the Pope. It is only that they accept such authority under extenuating circumstances. In the ordinary course of events, the Pope really does not interfere in the affairs of a sui juris Church. That is the way it should be – that is the way it is. The Orthodox perception is what is in error.

God bless,

Greg
 
“Forgive we must, forget we dare not.”=============

Those who tend to ignore history are apt to repeat it!

Orthodoc
 
[In the ordinary course of events, the Pope really does not interfere in the affairs of a *sui juris Church. That is the way it should be – that is the way it is. The Orthodox perception is what is in error.]

You don’t want me to start to quote from the ‘Code Of Canons Of The Eastern Churches’ to prove you wrong in that statement do you? Because I have the book right beside me.
Title III. The Supreme Authority of the Church

Can. 42 Just as by the lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the apostles, are joined together.

Chapter I. The Roman Pontiff

Can. 43 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office (munus) given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the entire Church on earth. By virtue of his office (munus) he possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 44 1. The Roman Pontiff obtains supreme and full power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal ordination. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
  1. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested, but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Can. 45 1. By virtue of his office (munus), the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the entire Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and their groupings. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care.
  1. In fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the entire Church, the Roman Pontiff is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office (munus).
  2. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 46 1. Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office (munus). They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. To assist him there are also cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutions according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutions fulfill the function entrusted to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norms established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
  1. The participation of patriarchs and of all the other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
Can. 47 When the Roman see is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the entire Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.

Can. 48 In this Code the term “Apostolic See” or “Holy See” applies not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise specified by the law or is clear from the nature of the matter, to the dicasteries and other institutions of the Roman curia.

Chapter II. The College of Bishops

Can. 49 The college of bishops, whose head is the Roman Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental ordination and hierarchical communion with the head of the college and its members, and in which the apostolic body continues in an unbroken manner, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the entire Church.

to be contd.

Orthodoc
 
contd.

Can. 50 1. The college of bishops exercises power over the entire Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.
2. The college of bishops exercises this same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which the Roman Pontiff has publicly declared or freely accepted as such so that it becomes a true collegial act.
3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops can collegially exercise its function regarding the entire Church.
Can. 51 1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve a council, and ot confirm its decrees.
2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in an ecumenical council and to establish the order to be observed in the same council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the fathers of the ecumenical council can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 52 1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and obligation to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.
2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.
Can. 53. If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of an ecumenical council, this council is interrupted by virtue of the law itself until the new Roman Pontiff orders the ecumenical council to be continued or dissolves it.
Can. 54. 1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him and promulgated at his order.
2. To have obligatory force, decrees that the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

Orthodoc
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Are there any records of attempts by Orthodox to convert the Muslims? I’m asking this sincerely, just for want of knowledge
Click to expand...
I was talking today to the priest who works at the Refugee and Migrant Centre - about the number of Muslim refugees we now have in the country from Somalia and Ethiopia.

He said that the Catholic Church makes no attempts to convert Muslims now to Christianity and that this is in line with the Pope’s latest teaching on Muslims and Jews.

He said that if a Catholic were to ask for literature to convert a Muslim he would discourage the attempt and explain the Holy Father’s attitude.
 
If I had the courage, I’d post a poll: “Who here has been convinced by Father Ambrose’s and Orthodoc’s hackneyed, shopworn, predictable, already-answered–a-thousand-times, and relentlessly anti-Catholic arguments?”

Something tells me the results would not redound to the credit of Holy Orthodoxy. :cool:

Blessings and merry Old Calendar Christmas 😃

ZT
 
40.png
ZoeTheodora:
If I had the courage, I’d post a poll: “Who here has been convinced by Father Ambrose’s and Orthodoc’s hackneyed, shopworn, predictable, already-answered–a-thousand-times, and relentlessly anti-Catholic arguments?”
Click to expand...
If you examine the evidence I suspect that it will be discovered that neither I nor Orthodoc initiate very much. We are responding to the “hackneyed, shopworn, predictable, already-answered–a-thousand-times, and relentlessly anti-Orthodox arguments” which occur on the Forum.

As I have mentioned, I was invited to this Forum by two Catholics who were unhappy about the misinformation being written against the Orthodox.

But I feel that the charity level of this thread is falling quickly.
 
Dear Orthodoc,

A shame you couldn’t have spent your time more constructively. I hope you didn’t type all that out, because nothing in those canons contests my statement. It is simple fact that the Holy Father only uses his prerogatives in extraordinary circumstances. It is ordinary and immediate only because in such extraordinary circumstances, quick action that may be needed will only be held up otherwise. It is not only true that the Holy Father’s prerogatives are ordinary and immediate, it is also the most practical manner by which to govern the Church in extraordinary circumstances. Further, absolutely nothing in those canons conflicts with my statement that under normal circumstances, the Holy Father does not interfere in the affairs of a sui juChurch. Indeed, the Holy Father has such prerogatives as described by the canons at all times, but that does not mean he uses them any time he wishes. This latter is the error, the myth, the lie, that polemic Orthodox (and Protestants) perpetuate against the Catholic Church of Christ. Take heed of the commandment – thou shalt not bear false witness!

Dear Father,

Yeah, we’ve had problems with those ecumenical minded liberals here in the U.S. too. I’m sure you’ve heard of that debacle regarding an unofficial statement by a mere subcommittee of the USCCB stating that the Jews did not need to be evangelized. It was blown out of proportion by enemies of Christ’s Church – somehow this little subcommittee was transformed in the anti-Catholic media as the official voice of the Church!!! I guess the same thing is going on in your neck of the woods. Don’t pay attention to them. Their attitude does not reflect the actual teaching of the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Greg
 
[Further, absolutely nothing in those canons conflicts with my statement that under normal circumstances, the Holy Father does not interfere in the affairs of a *sui juChurch. Indeed, the Holy Father has such prerogatives as described by the canons at all times, but that does not mean he uses them any time he wishes. This latter is the error, the myth, the lie, that polemic Orthodox (and Protestants) perpetuate against the Catholic Church of Christ. Take heed of the commandment – thou shalt not bear false witness!]

Is that why when the current Ukrainian Catholic Bishop here in Eastern Pennsylvania was consecrated it was done by a Papal representative rather than Cardinal Husar & oterh UGC Bishops? Is that why it was the Vatican that picked the date of the consecration rather than the UGCC and stood firm when objections arose? Is that why the last three UGCC Bishops here in the U.S. that retired had to submit their retirement applications directly to the Pope instead of the chief Hierach of the UGCC (Cardinal Husar)? Is that why in spite of the Popes denial of a UGC Patriarchate the people address the good Cardinal as Patriarch only when the Pope isn’t around?

Actions speak louder than words my friend.

Orthodoc
 
Dear Greg,

One of the complaints I’ve heard in reference to the current Pope is that the Cardinals are getting too many directives from Rome regarding the Popes orders in the local affairs of Churches. There seems to be a desire to move away from that reality.

**Bittermann: **Lehman might fit into that category with some expressive progressive views on some matters. There seems to be one thread among new and old cardinals: a move away from centralized authority that John Paul has imposed during his 22 years as pope.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
Dear Orthodoc,

I am aware of those actions, and I am partly sympathetic to your position, but only partly. In the Catholic Church, all areas outside of the normal Patriarchal boundaries are regarded as under the purview of the Western See. This is not only logical, but ecclesiastically canonical. It is the Western See that evangelized the New World, and all areas outside the Old World Patriarchal boundaries. Thus, these areas are really and ecclesiastically under the authority of the Western Patriarch. The actions you have spoken of do not imply an intrusion of extraordinary jurisdiction by the Pope into the ordinary jurisdiction of an Eastern Patriarch. Not at all. Those actions imply – nay denote – an exercise of ordinary jurisdiction by the Pope over a territory in the Western See. Catholic canon law states that within the Old World Patriarchal boundaries, the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs indeed have full and proper jurisdiction. Within these boundaries, such actions that you have spoken of would not occur.

The best course of action is for the Eastern Catholics to unite and to petition to form a Patriarchate in the West. At that point, such actions that you frown upon will no longer occur. But in the present situation, there are really no canonical grounds for your complaints.

God bless,

Greg
 
Greg:

I’ve heard some double talk but you surpass anyone one else so far.

So now you are telling me that those guaranteed rights of each of the 22 so called sui juris churches are only valid within the boundaries and territories specified by the Pope? And you all accuse the Moscow Patriarch of being territorial!

My faith doesn’t change according to the country I live in. My priests can be married no matter what country they live in.

You write -

[It is the Western See that evangelized the New World, and all areas outside the Old World Patriarchal boundaries. Thus, these areas are really and ecclesiastically under the authority of the Western Patriarch. ]

I don’t know where you live but I live in the United States where a christian presence is more a result of immigration than any type of Evangelizing by he Roman Catholic Church.

Orthodoc
 
Dear Matthew,

Yeah, it is OK to be less centralized, but it seems the Latin bishops that are supporting such a move are the same ones who generally have liberal views on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and women’s ordination. It would be a sad and immoral situation if to further a canonical goal, otherwise orthodox bishops would join forces with such heresiarchs who oppose divine moral truths.

God bless,

Greg
 
Dear Greg,

I can’t agree with most of your comments, but I can assure you that there many very conservative Cardinals in the United States that prefer a much less centralized situation. As such I know for a fact your deflection here as well is also very inaccurate or slippery to say the least.

Since it seems to me that your answers continue to slide down the apologetics mountain and no end to your maneuvering is in site, you’ll have another response.

However what if one day the Bishop of Rome and the Vatican becomes decentralized, would your comments have been wrong then in this regard. I say that because if a new Bishop of Rome comes foward with a more decentralized attitude having suffered the difficulties of a centralized structure himself a decentralization might be established and greeted with much approval from the Cardinals that choose the new Bishop of Rome.

Just a thought or could they not choose a new Bishop of Rome with such a disposition?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
40.png
Orthodoc:
The legalization of the Orthodox Church resulted in mass return to Orthodoxy especially in Eastern Belorussia. This resulted in mass attacks on Orthodox households and Churches led by bishop Josaphat (Kuntsevish). The citizens revolted which resulted in Josaphat’s death.
Click to expand...
Mary answers Fr Ambrose on this
catholic-forum.com/dcforum/saints/233.html
It seems you two use the same faulty source. Professor Dimitry Pospielovsky.

Mary writes:

"St. Josaphat (1580-1623),an Eastern Catholic Saint, who was martyred by his own people for converting to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy.

After his martyrdom his assassins converted to Catholicism and so did the Orthodox Bishop (Smotrytsky) who had vehemently fought the Saint and who had previously spread slanders against him to thwart his endeavors.
thebasilica.org/basilica/life_of_st_josephat.asp.
it is not in the interest of the Orthodox that one of them became a Catholic and by martyrdom for his faith in The Church that Christ Built, caused the conversion of others.

Much of what this is all based on was a letter, which was redacted by Russian historians. (See the link below).

There is also more evidence to show that what you quoted are nothing but lies made up at a later time to undermine the fact that a once orthodox holy person not only converted but died for Catholicism rather than revert back to being an orthodox:“The best evidence for the life of St. Josaphat comes from the documents prepared for the cause for his canonization. Eye-witnesses to the events in question were interviewed under oath. Catholics (Latin and Greek), Orthodox, Baptists, and Jews all testified before the special commission set up for this purpose in 1626. None of these witnesses confirmed any of these outrages charges against St. Josaphat, although they were specifically asked about how he treated the Orthodox”

Would any logical person believe that the orthodox of today know more than the orthodox of his day about this saint and his actions?

According to true accounts gathered at the time, St. Josaphat was not knocking down tents of the orthodox but was in the Episcopal residence: (3) St. Josaphat after finishing matins had retired to the episcopal residence. It was there that the mob found him. They dragged him into the courtyard, shot him until he was dead, beat him (even after he was dead), and horribly abused his corpse–although many were surprised to find a hairshirt under his garments. They continued to mutilate his body, until it was taken, weighted down, and dumped into the river."

The reason that all the Popes including the current one honor this saint is because they do not believe what the Orthodox are saying but believe what Heaven has said. In Catholicism the making of a saint involves the intervention of God and even though I do not know the exact events that led to his canonization they had to include miracles that defy nature. Anyway this shows what Heaven thought of St. Josaphat and the conversion of many orthodox due to what Heaven showed them: (4) Dozens of witnesses testified to miraculous light over the cathedral of Vitebsk after Josaphat’s murder. Many of his assassins were converted, as were hundreds of Orthodox in Vitebsk and Polotsk. Most notable was the conversion of Archbp. Meletius Smotrytsky, who had been St. Josaphat’s archenemy and rival for the see of Polotsk, and who was received into communion at the end 1627. St. Josaphat’s relics were incorrupt, despite the horrible mutilation of his body, for centuries after his glorious martyrdom

Father, it is no surprise that the Orthodox are claiming such things. Their response to the conversion of Bishop Smotrytsky is that he did so because he felt guilty that he had a hand in the killing of Saint Josaphat. So the Orthodox are claiming Smotrytsky converted for personal guilt feelings and not doctrinal. Does that make sense? The saints teach us that if one is to find the real truth about anything, then one has to suppress all passions and biases and rely on one’s reason and logic. All quotes in green are from the following site:
cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0585.html

In Christ, Mary"

I think Mary answered this charge very well.
40.png
Orthodoc:
Pope Urban VII proclaimed that any Roman Catholic who dared to oppose the use of the sword against the Orthodox would be excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Do you have an official statement or is this an urban legend?
 
So you want us to believe that this so called saintly man did nothing more than convert to Roman Catholicism! And because he did, he so enraged the people under his authority that they rioted and attacked him without the slightest provocation?

Seems like this Mary has her facts a little off balance. Kuntsevich’s persecution of the Orthodox Church was a reaction the mass return to the Orthodox faith once it was once again legitimized and its dioceses began to be restored in the area of his diocese -

The Orthodox Church And The History Of Russia…Dimitry Pospielovsky

Page 96-97

The Polish government could ill afford continuous persecutions of the Orthodox. A war with Turkey loomed on the horizon, and in 1621 the Cossacks presented an ultimatum to the Polish Crown, stating that unless all persecution of the Orthodox Church ceased, they would refuse to fight the Turks. In response, the 1623 Sejm declared toleration of the Orthodox Church and permitted the legimitization of Orthodox bishops and the restoration of their dioceses.

But the joy of the Orthodox was short lived. The legalization of the Orthodox Church resulted in a mass return to Orthodoxy of the uniates, particularly in Eastern Belorussia, where the unia had been imposed only recently, and where the fanatical Uniate bishop Josaphat Kuntsevich of Polotsk and Vitebsk responded with bloody attacks on Orthodox households and churches with the help of locally stationed regular troops at his disposal. Even uniate bishop Metropolitan Rutskii in vain called on Josephat to exercise moderation. Then the citizens of Vitebsk rose in revolt, lynched the bishop, and threw his body in the Dvina. A few days later the body was recovered from the water by the Uniates, and Kuntsevitch was proclaimed a martyr-saint, highly revered by the UGCC to this day.

Roman Catholic revenge was immediate and brutal. Ten citizens of Vitebsk were executed, the city lost its immunities granted under the Magdeburg Law, and all Orthodox churches, including those situated on the brotherhood lands, were closed and confiscated. Everywhere in the commonwealth, the Orthodox lost the right not only to build but even to repair churches; and Pope Urban VII proclaimed that any Roman Catholic who dared to oppose the use of the sword against the Orthodox would be excommunicated.

The status of the Orthodox Church after Kuntsevich episode remained so tragic, that Job, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, secretly appealed to the Tsar micheal of Russia in 1625 to annex Rus’ parts of the Commonwealth to Muscovy.

Orthodoc
 
40.png
GAssisi:
I’m sure you’ve heard of that debacle regarding an unofficial statement by a mere subcommittee of the USCCB stating that the Jews did not need to be evangelized…Don’t pay attention to them. Their attitude does not reflect the actual teaching of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
Is the Catholic attitude represented then by the newly canonised Padre Pio:

“The Jews are the enemies of God and therefore of our Holy Religion.”

Does anyone have a reference for these words? Pio, do you know? I see that “katolik” uses these words as his signature line.
 
Dear Orthodoc,

It was truly painful (because I was laughing so hard it hurt) to read a post containing such grossly erroneous premises, with attendant bluster presuming a valid point was made. First of all, the Pope did not create the boundaries of the sui juris Churches – the Ecumenical Councils and historic ecclesiastical tradition did. Secondly, the complaint made against the Moscow Patriarchate is not because it is being territorial, but because it is being hypocritical for making the fuss after having created dioceses in the Western Patriarchate. Thirdly, clerical marriage or celibacy is not an issue of faith, so whether a certain sui juris Church has that discipline or not, believe me (no pun intended), it wouldn’t affect your doctrinal faith.

Fourthly, I’m surprised that living in the United States, you are not aware of the evangelistic efforts of the Catholic Church all over the New World. Are you even remotely aware that all the Latin American countries were at one time completely Catholic? I guess those peoples must have been evangelized by angels. Hehehe! Once again, are you even remotely aware of the Catholic missionary martyrs that planted the seeds of Christianity in North America from coast to coast (including Canada), even before the United States was born? Are you aware that all the Western European nations are in the Western See?

Well, enough of the history lesson. Let’s talk about canonical considerations. Are you aware that when Russia was evangelized, it was under the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople? And why is that? Is it possibly because it was the Constantinopolitan See that initiated evangelization efforts into Russia? This is the only instance in Orthodox history I can think of that can be used as a comparable analogy to the situation in the U.S. But it should be enough to enable you to understand that, in the absence of an overseeing authority to actually establish patriarchal boundaries (as occurred in the earlier days of the Church), missionary activity would be the determining factor for Patriarchal territory. If you can think of other instances analogous to the U.S. situation, you are welcome to point them out, but it will only reinforce the fact that you have been (perhaps) ignorant of the canonical issues involved.

God bless,

Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top