@dochawk
Don’t tell that to the UGCC! Our Major Archbishop Sviatoslav is commemorated as “Patriarch” in our parish yet he is commemorated at our cathedral in Philadelphia as “Major Archbishop”. Finally, in official UGCC publications he is usually referred to as “Patriarch” unless there’s a Vatican article which refers to him as “Major Archbishop”.
Isn’t Vatican kind of hesitant to give that title to the UGCC? Due to the majority Orthodox Church in Ukraine and how they might perceive a Patriarch title on an EC Church being bestowed by Rome.
Eastern Catholic Churches have authority to venerate their own Saints. Of course they should not be anti-Catholic in essence (Mark of Ephesus for example).
This is incorrect understanding of East as well. Pope is Primus, Infallible and can intervene in affairs of East as he sees fit. But he is not direct superior of Patriarchs. Pope is head of Latin Church. Imagine Eastern Patriarch being Latin Catholic- how would that be viewed?
Honestly whole point of this is to not anger Russians. We don’t recognize Ukrainian Catholics as Patriarchs so that those in Schism won’t be angry. What’s next, not recognizing our Archbishops to not anger evangelical Christians? To me and by virtue of tradition, Ukrainian Church should have Patriarch.
You know how I’m going to respond . . .
The UGCC has decided he is a patriarch. The Vatican hasn’t consented. So it depends upon who is writing.
These will come to a head when their successors are chosen.
Does this mean that Zoghby does not agree with Vatican I ?
During covid 19 I had occasion to view some traditional Lutheran liturgies and traditional Anglican liturgies online. They were very respectful and not all that different from the Roman Catholic Mass. Why is there not success in reunion with traditional Lutherans or traditional Anglicans? Well, Catholics declare that the holy communion of the traditional Lutheran or traditional Anglican service is just plain bread and plain wine. Is that not an insult to degrade their religion like that?
Yes, it has strained relationship with the Malankara Orthodox Church (aka Indian Orthodox Church - IOC) - which is a part of OO communion. As the IOC head also has the Catholicos title.
It’s also what Orthodox would claim of any non-orthodox (or sometimes catholics are excluded). It isn’t an insult but our sincere belief. In order to think, you have to risk being offensive. Our Lord and Saviour said many things about many people and some were offensive.
He also said that “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Traditional Lutherans and traditional Anglicans receive their Holy Communion devoutly and with reverence and belief in Our Lord and Savior. Matthew 18: 20 implies that it is wrong to denigrate their faith and insult the belief they have in their Eucharistic Mystery.
Christ’s presence in that statement doesn’t seem to be Eucharistic.
Well… firstly I am missing that implication. Secondly, Apostles warn us about heresy and Schism. Should Church tolerate or encourage heresy?
The principle appears to be wrong because any Christian can confer the Sacrament of Baptism which results in the absolution of sins. Where did Jesus say that Apostolic Succession is not necessary to confer the Sacrament of Baptism, but Apostolic Succession is necessary to confect the Eucharist? Note: when a Christian baptizes someone, all their sins go away, No?
Yes. That doesn’t confer authority to consecrate Eucharist though.
We are not Sola Scriptura Christians. Where did our Lord and Saviour say which books does Bible contain? It’s obvious that if He came to fulfill the old law and not erase it, parallel exists between Old and New Law Sacrifices. Not anyone could perform Sacrifice under Old Law and not everyone can do so under New Law. St. Paul who authored numerous writings in New Testament also claims Church is “pillar and foundation of Truth”. Since Church has ruled, “pillar and foundation of Truth” has ruled and we know that Church has validly proclaimed Truth- that there is no such thing as valid Eucharist without valid Priesthood.
The Church “pillar and foundation of Truth” had ruled on torture, allowing it under certain conditions for the Inquisition, then later on the “pillar and foundation of Truth” changed her mind and said that torture was not allowed. How do we know that the “pillar and foundation of Truth” will not change her mind on whether or not an Anglican priest can confect the Eucharist. Anyway, I don’t see the reasoning behind accepting the validity of Baptism conferred by a layperson, but not accept the confection of the Eucharist by an Anglican priest.
Where did Church teach torture was permitted? And where does it teach it isn’t?
Anglican Priest could validly consecrate Eucharist. Problem is that it has to be valid Anglican Priest… and Anglican Orders atarge are null and void. Anyhow, Truth does not change.
Ad extirpanda.
Recent papal statements.
Unfortunately truth does change. Take the question of what constitutes a “valid” marriage.
Are they binding?
Then we know different Jesus Christ. One we believe in said He is Truth and claimed “before Abraham was, I AM” - claim for existence of God who is beyond time as He exists (present tense) in past as much as in the future.
Church has power to regulate Sacraments. For example in East, Marriage is only viewed as valid when Priest blesses it but we know that Early Christians didn’t need it- even presence of Clergy was not necessary. Latin Church made presence of clergy or different appointee of the Church mandatory for validity which it wasn’t before. Truths of Marriage do not change, but Sacraments that are proper to True Church while also present outside it are still under effect of authority of the Church Herself.
:ukraine: