Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Peter_J]

I don’t think there’s any way to prove, to everyone’s satisfaction, that it’s a tragedy; but I for one agree with Trevor that the virtual elimination of several rites (e.g. Mozarabic and Ambrosian) and the actual elimination of several others, is a tragedy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My question is why is it a tragedy? I can read the history. And were not talking several others, we are talking this particular as a case in point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Such a position surely does exist. It may be unusual, it may even be obviously wrong (since Rome and Orthodoxy both reject it), but to go so far as to say that such a position doesn’t exist is absurd, it seems to me.

No, it does not exist. If it is a position other than what the Pope himself believes the position to be, then one should not be Catholic. Since the Papacy is a dogma in the Catholic faith, one who doesn’t see and accept the Papacy the way the Pope himself sees it is not Catholic (let him be anathema).

 

[Trebor135]

Exactly, it also only indicates and continues to confirm how easily a mind could be influenced. To what avail?

The “opinion” thus view of history one choose’s to uphold is just that. How does one claim an objective view of history with a bias view of history. Let me give you a good example of how history could be viewed and obviously is.

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy&sa=U&ei=awLuT9uTMeW46QGxrqibCg&ved=0CBwQFjAC&sig2=pdDfXPySVAKMlQ_2E2HJIg&usg=AFQjCNHP3-tf0ds-MHQ2kdytCLZVzdmsDg

And here’s how it could be viewed differently.

 

[Peter_J]

No, it does not exist. If it is a position other than what the Pope himself believes the position to be, then one should not be Catholic. Since the Papacy is a dogma in the Catholic faith, one who doesn’t see and accept the Papacy the way the Pope himself sees it is not Catholic (let him be anathema).

I should modify what I said before:

Such a position (i.e. a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position) surely does exist. It may be unusual, it may not be Catholic (or Orthodox), it may even be obviously wrong, but to go so far as to say that such a position doesn’t exist is absurd.

Indeed, not only does such a position exist, but I would say that I’ve met some people who hold it.

 

[Trebor135]

Why is it a tragedy?

If the near-loss of a beautiful liturgical form isn’t a tragedy, I’d like to know what is, in the ecclesiastical context.

Church history documents this clearly.

What does it document clearly?

Where is the fault with Trent here? Trent confirmed what had been advised by many others for centuries.

A Calvinist gathering this year to confirm the decisions of the 1619 Synod of Dort would not alter the erroneous character of TULIP.

A bad idea (eliminating the Ambrosian rite from general use) repeated long enough does not become a good one.

Liberty taken to change the mass is challenged and changed, thats all that happened.

And I’m challenging that change right here.

There are few traces of the Old Spanish rite from the era before 711. The Verona Orationale is a collection of Office prayers that was brought to Italy for safekeeping during the Arab invasion. It must date from about 700, and it not only witnesses to the literary style of the rite but it also contains marginal cues of chant texts. An early chant manuscript is the Léon Antiphoner, a tenth-century copy of a seventh-century source, but a number of other chant manuscripts were made in the Visigothic kingdom from the ninth to eleventh centuries. The neumes, like Frankish neumes of the same period, cannot be deciphered, since there are no related manuscripts containing these chants in staff notation to assist in reading them.

The reconquest of Muslim Spain moved forward in the eleventh century, bringing French monks and bishops into Spain. When Toledo, the ancient capital, was captured in 1085, a French archbishop was installed in the see. The Old Spanish rite was abolished in favor of the Roman rite with its Gregorian chant. It became known as the Mozarabic rite because it continued to be used under Arab rule, and it also survived around Toledo.

After the reconquest was completed in 1492, Cardinal Jiménez of Toledo restored limited use of the old rite in a chapel of his cathedral. In 1500 and 1502 he published new editions of the chants as they were being sung from oral transmission, but there is a lack of resemblance between these editions and the medieval manuscripts, unreadable though they are. Fr. Jerome F. Weber

google.com/url?q=http://catholicrights.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-council-of-trent-was-about.html&sa=U&ei=MQvvT5ftOIrq6QHN8r2aBg&ved=0CCgQFjAF&sig2=kkl5byQPnQrTTD2fweyQbg&usg=AFQjCNGWkEWzuykyW4qmgpjC2KF00hZYFQ

If the Ambrosian rite could be revived in the 1490s at one cathedral in Spain, it could have been brought back in all the churches across the country.

One may argue post 1962 and have a stronger point.

If I were a Spaniard concerned with preserving my Iberian heritage, I would definitely get a petition circulating for the Ambrosian rite to be celebrated across Spain again.

But Trent is correct here, one is opting for beauty but once again. Seems to be the resounding value upheld.

I don’t really understand what you were intending to say here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I should modify what I said before:

Such a position (i.e. a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position) surely does exist. It may be unusual, it may not be Catholic (or Orthodox), it may even be obviously wrong, but to go so far as to say that such a position doesn’t exist is absurd.

Indeed, not only does such a position exist, but I would say that I’ve met some people who hold it.

Well, the Orthodox position wildly varies as well. It’s not as if they have defined it. All they say is that the current (and has been for the last 1000 years) authority of the Papacy is not what is reflective of the first 1000 years. Some Orthodox would accept the High Petrine view, while others only would accept Low Petrine (First among equals with no real authority. Only honor).

What I meant that it does not exist is that while there are those who hold that position, that actual position is only in people’s imagination.

 

[Trebor135]

Indeed, not only does such a position exist, but I would say that I’ve met some people who hold it.

I’d like to ask what this middle-of-the-road position looks like, and whether MardukM would be a proponent of the view on CAF.

 

[Trebor135]

[W]hile there are those who hold that position, that actual position is only in people’s imagination.

On what basis do you make this statement?

 

[ConstantineTG]

On what basis do you make this statement?

Its what I have been espousing throughout this thread. The only true Catholic position about the Papacy is the one the Pope himself preaches and believes in. If we, especially Eastern Catholics, believe the Papal position to be wrong, then we are the ones who are wrong and we are the ones who are creating this imagination in our minds that the Papacy could be anything else than what the Pope himself defined it to be. If we cannot accept that, then Catholicism is not for us.

 

[Hesychios]

ConstantineTG;9468000:

… there is no in-between. We as Eastern Catholics shouldn’t pretend there is such a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position. We are either one or the other.

Such a position (i.e. a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position) surely does exist. It may be unusual, it may not be Catholic (or Orthodox), it may even be obviously wrong, but to go so far as to say that such a position doesn’t exist is absurd.

Indeed, not only does such a position exist, but I would say that I’ve met some people who hold it.

I think it is not a stable place to be.

 

[Trebor135]

Its what I have been espousing throughout this thread. The only true Catholic position about the Papacy is the one the Pope himself preaches and believes in. If we, especially Eastern Catholics, believe the Papal position to be wrong, then we are the ones who are wrong and we are the ones who are creating this imagination in our minds that the Papacy could be anything else than what the Pope himself defined it to be. If we cannot accept that, then Catholicism is not for us.

Right. Got it.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think there’s any way to prove, to everyone’s satisfaction, that it’s a tragedy; but I for one agree with Trevor that the virtual elimination of several rites (e.g. Mozarabic and Ambrosian) and the actual elimination of several others, is a tragedy.

My question is why is it a tragedy? I can read the history. And were not talking several others, we are talking this particular as a case in point.

I agree that a particular example (in this case the Mozarabic Rite) would need to be studied in depth to reach a firm conclusion. I’m not really interested in spending that much time studying it, so let me just say that I believe the elimination and near-elimination of most of our Western rites is a real tragedy in general – without wishing to say that every single case was necessarily tragic.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It is not a rude question but an honest one. Something that I am asking myself.

Here’s the thing, how many of us really accept this position about the Pope because we are thoroughly convinced that it is the correct position? I lived my life as a Roman Catholic and accepted it without question. I was brought up with it. I became Eastern Catholic 2 years ago. People then floated this idea that the Pope was not as authoritative as the RCs say he is. So I accepted that idea as well. Then I was asked by an Orthodox priest about what do I believe about the Pope. So I told him this Eastern point of view which seems to disagree with the RC point of view. He told me to be honest about it. If the Pope teaches that he is such, and Eastern Catholics believe him to be something else, then why and how are we in communion with him? We are not being honest to the Pope, we are not being honest to ourselves. So thus this thread. I want to know what people think and what we should think about it. And perhaps in the end I accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction and be a happy and stronger Catholic. Or I don’t and I leave for the Orthodox Church. But there is no in-between. We as Eastern Catholics shouldn’t pretend there is such a position in between the RC position and the Orthodox position. We are either one or the other.

Hmmmm, okay, thank you. That’s about as good of an answer as I could have hoped for, you are very kind.

Gives you a lot to think about too…I always liked mardukm’s “Absolutist Petrine, High Petrine, and Low Petrine” distinctions…I’d love to see him write a book on that one day. Or at the very least an extended series of posts explaining the exact nature of his concept and why he believes it. I’ve managed to piece his “High Petrine” position together from various threads. I wonder if that really is the answer.

Who knows? I certainly don’t.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, the Orthodox position wildly varies as well. It’s not as if they have defined it. All they say is that the current (and has been for the last 1000 years) authority of the Papacy is not what is reflective of the first 1000 years. Some Orthodox would accept the High Petrine view, while others only would accept Low Petrine (First among equals with no real authority. Only honor).

What I meant that it does not exist is that while there are those who hold that position, that actual position is only in people’s imagination.

Well, it’s often said (and debated) that such persons are living a fantasy (or “LARPing” as some like to put it). What you’re saying here sounds different, but perhaps it’s just that I’m not used to the way you’re saying it.

 

[Peter_J]

I think it is not a stable place to be.

But, to put a positive spin on it, less risk of being trampled.

 

[Hesychios]

But, to put a positive spin on it, less risk of being trampled.

For some it can be a bit like being on the median of a superhighway. The traffic is going two ways, not three, and sooner or later there has to be movement. Staying put is not necessarily an option …

 

[GaryTaylor]

And here’s how it could be viewed differently.

Critical historical evidence is lacking on the part of the EO. You become reduced to an opinion not factual historical evidence. Assumption’s abound on what we do not know. The First Council is a perfect example.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If we, especially Eastern Catholics, believe the Papal position to be wrong, then we are the ones who are wrong and we are the ones who are creating this imagination in our minds that the Papacy could be anything else than what the Pope himself defined it to be. If we cannot accept that, then Catholicism is not for us.

Your seeing this in a illusive way. Whats clear is what is known as “fact” historically. To believe something is wrong and to prove something is wrong seems to be where your issue lies IMHO.

I’m willing to listen objectively to the arguements of this non existing Papal Authority in History.

In other words, in not false because you say so. It can only be false if…

a] Can be factual and proven Historically. Here I see very much the opposite.

b] Is equally supported by Scripture. Not only its interpretation of today but also Historically. Again I fail to see this.

Perhaps a valid agrument can be provided to counter Romes. I’ve yet to see it.

Here is Romes claim…

“There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.”
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22

Course I stated this on the other thread by distraction of thought. Rome’s case is compelling and could be seen with very little effort. What can’t be seen without assumption is the EO side of the debate.

 

[DadDave]

Your seeing this in a illusive way. Whats clear is what is known as “fact” historically. To believe something is wrong and to prove something is wrong seems to be where your issue lies IMHO.

I’m willing to listen objectively to the arguements of this non existing Papal Authority in History.

In other words, in not false because you say so. It can only be false if…

a] Can be factual and proven Historically. Here I see very much the opposite.

b] Is equally supported by Scripture. Not only its interpretation of today but also Historically. Again I fail to see this.

Perhaps a valid agrument can be provided to counter Romes. I’ve yet to see it.

Here is Romes claim…

“There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.”
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22

Course I stated this on the other thread by distraction of thought. Rome’s case is compelling and could be seen with very little effort. What can’t be seen without assumption is the EO side of the debate.

Gary could you clarify what are the historical facts? (or lack there of?) I’m not quite following your posts