Should this be permitted? Your opinions please

[devoutchristian]

The Kerala Christians wanted churches where they could celebrate their faith according to their own tradition. Now their traditions are changed against their will and they are rightly upset.

They can still practice endogamy. They just can’t exclude people who don’t.

Maybe when french Christians complain that the govt is confiscating their churches and giving them to muslims we should tell them to give freely without expectation of compensation.

The Church has authority over the matter, civil authorities do not. Therefore, your point is moot.

 

[jimmy]

Apples and oranges - for one thing the OP is talking of brother and sister Catholics, not an alien faith that does not even acknowledge the divinity of Christ.

St Paul collected money offerings (from the Corinthians if memory serves) and took them back (to Jerusalem?) with him. No question of that money being spent merely on the wants or needs of Corinth. It was up to those in authority to decide what was to be done with it.

And the corinthians gave with that in mind. The Kerala Christians gave for building of their own parishes.

It is irrelevant whether Muslims are non Christian, it is the same idea. That is a new principle that is not a part of the original. They have every right to be angry that their money was essentially stolen, if their tradition is destroyed. The Kerala Christians gave their money for their own parishes, it is no ones right to judge their contribution and declare that they should give their money freely with no stipulation on where it goes or how it’s spent.

 

[jimmy]

The bishops are the successors of the Apostles - as fully endowed with Christ’s authority as the original 12. Including in bureaucratic matters - or does the power to bind and loose ‘whatever’ not extend to where the laity doesn’t want to be bound?

This is the way the west thinks; everything is up for change if the bishops want it. Who cares about the community, they aren’t a part of the succession. In the east there is more integrity within te church. There is more of a connection between the bishop and the community. Bishops don’t just up and change tradition because they think it should be changed. The Orthodox and Byzantines would say that succession is associated with the community more so, and not just the bishop. A bishop is always the head of a community, and never taken apart from it. So it is a succession of a particular church with a particular bishop as its head.

Not even in the west can it be claimed that the authority of the bishops is the same as that of the apostles, otherwise the scripture cannon would have never been closed.

 

[jimmy]

They can still practice endogamy. They just can’t exclude people who don’t.

The Church has authority over the matter, civil authorities do not. Therefore, your point is moot.

What are you talking about civil authorities do not? So the French don’t have to give freely but the Kerala Christians do? The civil authorities are claiming the authority. Those churches are being declared public property, so yes they do have authority.

The Latins can still go to a Latin mass since there was a special dispensation given. That doesn’t mean the Latin tradition wasn’t changed. Maybe you guys don’t care about tradition in the west, but in the east we care.

 

[devoutchristian]

What are you talking about civil authorities do not? So the French don’t have to give freely but the Kerala Christians do? The civil authorities are claiming the authority. Those churches are being declared public property, so yes they do have authority.

The Church has the authority to define the limits of its authority. The State does not have such an authority.

 

[LilyM]

This is the way the west thinks; everything is up for change if the bishops want it. Who cares about the community, they aren’t a part of the succession. In the east there is more integrity within te church. There is more of a connection between the bishop and the community. Bishops don’t just up and change tradition because they think it should be changed. The Orthodox and Byzantines would say that succession is associated with the community more so, and not just the bishop. A bishop is always the head of a community, and never taken apart from it. So it is a succession of a particular church with a particular bishop as its head.

Not even in the west can it be claimed that the authority of the bishops is the same as that of the apostles, otherwise the scripture cannon would have never been closed.

Is the Canon closed though?

I don’t mean in the sense that a bishop of today could write new scripture (St John told us not to add in that sense, and presumably even he could not do so after that point). But in the sense that if a new letter or gospel was discovered that dated to Apostolic times, was written by one of the Apostles and otherwise met all the same criteria by which the other Gospels and Epistles of the NT were adjudged to be scriptural it could not be included in the Canon?

I realise the extreme unlikelihood of such a writing remaining undiscovered for two milennia, but humour me.

Besides which, the issue re scripture is not that the authority of the current bishops is less, rather that the deposit of faith and public revelation ended with St John. That this is the case is not a question of authority.

 

[jimmy]

By the way Latin Catholics speak you would think the laity were to just passively accept what the bishops declared, just because the bishops declared it. If you look at the early church though it wasn’t so simple. The monks of Alexandria, Syria, constantinople, and other places were essential in the life of the church. If they rejected what the bishop said at a council, then it was a sure sign that what the bishop said would never have any authority. The bishop didn’t have absolute authority over the community. Maybe the west is different because they never had such a strong monastic community in the early church.

 

[devoutchristian]

Is the Canon closed though?

I don’t mean in the sense that a bishop of today could write new scripture (St John told us not to add in that sense, and presumably even he could not do so after that point). But in the sense that if a new letter or gospel was discovered that dated to Apostolic times, was written by one of the Apostles and otherwise met all the same criteria by which the other Gospels and Epistles of the NT were adjudged to be scriptural it could not be included in the Canon?

There are other writings dating to that period. The canon was conclusively closed during the fourth century.

 

[jimmy]

The Church has the authority to define the limits of its authority. The State does not have such an authority.

So the churches authority is absolute. They could deny the civil authorities when it comes to abusive priests, but they decide to limit their own authority? Are you being serious? If that is really the case then I reject the catholic church because they have truely rejected the faith of Christ.

 

[jimmy]

Is the Canon closed though?

I don’t mean in the sense that a bishop of today could write new scripture (St John told us not to add in that sense, and presumably even he could not do so after that point). But in the sense that if a new letter or gospel was discovered that dated to Apostolic times, was written by one of the Apostles and otherwise met all the same criteria by which the other Gospels and Epistles of the NT were adjudged to be scriptural it could not be included in the Canon?

I realise the extreme unlikelihood of such a writing remaining undiscovered for two milennia, but humour me.

Besides which, the issue re scripture is not that the authority of the current bishops is less, rather that the deposit of faith and public revelation ended with St John. That this is the case is not a question of authority.

You would have to come up with a whole body of literature that would imply that it was read from apostolic times in the liturgy, because that was one of the requirements for canonicity. Its status in the liturgy was essential. The only possible exception might be if a copy of the gospel to the Hebrews was discovered. Supposedly that had an apostolic claim.

 

[LilyM]

By the way Latin Catholics speak you would think the laity were to just passively accept what the bishops declared, just because the bishops declared it. If you look at the early church though it wasn’t so simple. The monks of Alexandria, Syria, constantinople, and other places were essential in the life of the church. If they rejected what the bishop said at a council, then it was a sure sign that what the bishop said would never have any authority. The bishop didn’t have absolute authority over the community. Maybe the west is different because they never had such a strong monastic community in the early church.

I see, so when the laity of the early community were arguing (as they undoubtedly did fiercely) about whether Gentile converts should be made to obey the Mosaic law or not, the Apostles looked at each other and said ‘oh dear, the community will never all agree to accept one position or the other - we can’t possibly make a decision about the issue then, we only have the authority if they tell us we do!’

And when they were arguing equally fiercely about the nature of Christ during the Arian controversy the bishops again collectively looked at each other and decided that in view of the laity’s failure to agree or accept they could not possibly make a - dare I say extremely unpopular but nonetheless authoritative - decision and teaching on the matter. Silly me. Guess I got my understanding of the councils of Nicea and Constantinople all wrong then.

 

[devoutchristian]

So the churches authority is absolute. They could deny the civil authorities when it comes to abusive priests, but they decide to limit their own authority? Are you being serious? If that is really the case then I reject the catholic church because they have truely rejected the faith of Christ.

The Church could not infallibly define that it has an authority which it does not. This is due to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The civil authorities do not have such guidance, ergo, they do not have the authority to define the limits of their authority

 

[jimmy]

First, there hasn’t been a moment since the death of the apostles in which the church has operated in the manner it did under the apostles. There might be similarities but it isn’t the same.

Second, a bishops standing in his particular church was largely dependent on the perception of the laity, and in particular the monastics. Parrt of the reason for the influence of Alexandria or antioch was the monastic communities associated with them. Monks would run bishops out of town if the bishop was a heretic. It wasn’t as simple as the west likes to make it. If you heard only the western view of history you would think the bishops met in council and made decisions, and them the communities submitted peacefully to the will of the council affirmed by the pope.

 

[jimmy]

The Church could not infallibly define that it has an authority which it does not. This is due to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The civil authorities do not have such guidance, ergo, they do not have the authority to define the limits of their authority

The fact is that the church never had authority to own property until the fourth century, and now the French are showing that they no longer have that authority in French territory. The French will take what they will take, and there is nothing the church can do about it.

Maybe you want to argue that authority is given by God, but you would have to assume that God supports private property ownership in this case. You would have to assume a very specific politics, which has never been affirmed by the church.

 

[devoutchristian]

The fact is that the church never had authority to own property until the fourth century, and now the French are showing that they no longer have that authority in French territory. The French will take what they will take, and there is nothing the church can do about it.

You seem to be confusing power with authority. While they are related, they are no identical.

Maybe you want to argue that authority is given by God, but you would have to assume that God supports private property ownership in this case. You would have to assume a very specific politics, which has never been affirmed by the church.

The Church has condemned socialism.

 

[LilyM]

First, there hasn’t been a moment since the death of the apostles in which the church has operated in the manner it did under the apostles. There might be similarities but it isn’t the same.

Second, a bishops standing in his particular church was largely dependent on the perception of the laity, and in particular the monastics. Parrt of the reason for the influence of Alexandria or antioch was the monastic communities associated with them. Monks would run bishops out of town if the bishop was a heretic. It wasn’t as simple as the west likes to make it. If you heard only the western view of history you would think the bishops met in council and made decisions, and them the communities submitted peacefully to the will of the council affirmed by the pope.

I’m not saying they submitted peacefully by any means - but orthodoxy was determined by those Councils. Those laity who presumed to dictate to their bishops were often heretics, at best disobedient. And why did St Ignatius of Antioch say ‘let nothing be done without the bishop’ if the laity held power over him and not he other way around?

If things were truly as much determined by the laity as you imply, we certainly would all be Arians, as that is what most of them were rooting for at the time of Nicea and Constantinople.

 

[Zekariya]

That is wonderful Thomas. Keep us updated on the decision. By the way, is the “K” pronounced in Knanaya or, is it silent?

 

[Loving_disciple]

If it is the ruling of a Bishop then I would obey it. The next Bishop may reverse it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t see the purpose of the protest. The community requested separate parishes - this was granted by the Eparchial Bishop. The Community requested their own priests - this was granted by the Eparchial Bishop. The Community requested a vicar general - this was granted by the Eparchial Bishop. The Community wants a bishop in North America like their Knanaya Syrian Orthodox counterparts - this is up to Rome, and was denied in Rome. Why protest Mar Jacob Angadiath?

 

[Zekariya]

I don’t see the purpose of the protest. The community requested separate parishes - this was granted by the Eparchial Bishop. The Community requested their own priests - this was granted by the Eparchial Bishop. The Community requested a vicar general - this was granted by the Eparchial Bishop. The Community wants a bishop in North America like their Knanaya Syrian Orthodox counterparts - this is up to Rome, and was denied in Rome. Why protest Mar Jacob Angadiath?

They are protesting, ending endogamy.