W
wannabee
Guest
I’m a wee bit puzzled here .
I’ve never heard of the Synod of St Timothy - can anyone enlighten me ?
I’ve never heard of the Synod of St Timothy - can anyone enlighten me ?
Found the info on a Google, with a “diocese of Our Lady of Medjugore” site.Bishop Davis continues to serve as pastor of St. Clare of Assisi Mission, residing at the St. Clare Rectory & Oratory in nearby Hagerstown, IN, and he also serves as the interim presiding bishop for a daughter autocephalous jurisdiction known as the Christian Synod of St. Timothy, launched in November 2004 (Cf. website at www.christiansynod.org)).
While I did not join this list to start or participate in any arguments, I do feel somewhat compelled to speak concerning this, especially since I am a member of the Synod.it is not just “not Roman Catholic” it is not Catholic at all. it is the result of american ‘i want to be something.’ sorry if that sounds uncharitable, but the fact is that it is improper to mascarade as a something, when you are a something else.
Act the act? SIGH I haven’t spent seven years in the priesthood to simply ‘act the act’. I have a very wonderful ministry and I wouldn’t trade it for the world.put up a building, put up a sign, act the act…
Again, you have made an assumption without actually knowing ANYONE associated with the Synod. I’m certainly not looking to be gratified. I am looking to serve my Lord and the people in the hospital and in the parish.there are a lot of people out there looking to be gratified. there are a lot of people out there looking to gratify them.
Hrm… I assume that this is something of a dig at our Timothean Rite. Let’s see… the Religious Order that gave birth to the Synod is named for St. Timothy… the Synod… St. Timothy… we have a unique rite that, while western in origins, is still somewhat different. Is there another name that seems more appropriate? We are not attributing it to St. Timothy, we are dedicating it to him and his example.keep an eye out for the “Forgotten Rite of Philemon” because if i don’t get my way, that’s what i’m going to invent.
Unfortunately the link provided by another poster doesn’t work for my computer: can you tell us more about your group? II am not quite sure what it is - is it a new rite? A new order? An ecumenical group? A what?While I did not join this list to start or participate in any arguments, I do feel somewhat compelled to speak concerning this, especially since I am a member of the Synod.
Basically we are a small group of clergy who are striving to follow the Ignatian model of Church Government, who are united together in professing the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, and united together in biblical and liturgical faith.Unfortunately the link provided by another poster doesn’t work for my computer: can you tell us more about your group? II am not quite sure what it is - is it a new rite? A new order? An ecumenical group? A what?
Thanks for any info you’d care to offer.
who? and what claim are you making?According to St. Vincent of Lerins and the Creeds, we are perfectly Catholic.
it is understood that you are not roman catholic. but you distort the claim of being Catholic. given what i can discern about your so-called rite on the internet, you might have apostolic succession as far as a bishop’s ordination, etc. but that seems dubious, and needs to be investigated by someone with more time than me. who were these so-called bishops? what was there claim to succession? what difference would it make if my great uncle were the second cousin twice removed of the best friend of St. Pius X? what validity does that claim?We lay no claims to be Roman Catholic, neither do we every plan to claim to be such, but the Churches in Communion with the Roman See do not hold any copyright to the term Catholic.
prove either claim that you imply here. this a convenient stretch of what the statement by the council actually is.The Vatican has stated that the Church is truly operative in those churches which, in spite of their seperation from Rome, have apostolic succession and valid sacraments.
there is no contradiction about your ministry to others. you may bring the Gospel to others. that is not the point. do you bring the fullness of the New Testament? was there not the One Church preached by Paul? i don’t mean to be un-ecumenical, but be careful about the truth about the One Church.Act the act? SIGH I haven’t spent seven years in the priesthood to simply ‘act the act’. I have a very wonderful ministry and I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
yes, your implied criticism of me is true. what are you talking about here? prove that this is not an invention on your part. when i invent it, my rite will be different too. and what would be wrong with me “dedicating” it to Philemon?Hrm… I assume that this is something of a dig at our Timothean Rite. Let’s see… the Religious Order that gave birth to the Synod is named for St. Timothy… the Synod… St. Timothy… we have a unique rite that, while western in origins, is still somewhat different. Is there another name that seems more appropriate? We are not attributing it to St. Timothy, we are dedicating it to him and his example.
Could you provide a link where the supreme court has ruled such? I would find it surprising that the court would take any case dealing with religion especially the word catholic.just because a bishop at some point in history ordained someone, who then ordained someone else, etc. doesn’t give you the right to say “hey i am Catholic.” i can’t even varify the succession you claim. as a matter of fact, the supreme court in this country has ruled that you are not allowed to use that term in such as way that it would be construed as ‘belonging to the Catholic Church’ when you are not.
Communion with Rome makes one Roman Catholic, however there are many catholic (think big C and little c like all the discussions on Tradition and tradition)are you in communion with Rome? if not, then state that fact. if you hold out some kind of hope to be in communion with Rome, as a result of inventing a rite acknowledging St. Timothy, what difference does that make? if i am a member of the rite of (st.) Philemon, what status would does that give me?prove either claim that you imply here. this a convenient stretch of what the statement by the council actually is.there is no contradiction about your ministry to others. you may bring the Gospel to others. that is not the point. do you bring the fullness of the New Testament? was there not the One Church preached by Paul? i don’t mean to be un-ecumenical, but be careful about the truth about the One Church.yes, your implied criticism of me is true. what are you talking about here? prove that this is not an invention on your part. when i invent it, my rite will be different too. and what would be wrong with me “dedicating” it to Philemon?
the point is, what would make you in communion? why you would pose as something that you are not?
I would say you need to take a look at the Vatican document Dominus JesusThe Vatican has stated that the Church is truly operative in those churches which, in spite of their seperation from Rome, have apostolic succession and valid sacraments.
58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
so the answer to the question “are you Catholic?” is “no” or “decline to state”?As stated earlier, I did not come here to argue. Likewise, I did not come here to be baited into an argument.
If you have questions concerning our Apostolic Succession and our claims to Catholicity, I suggest you contact our Bishop and take it up with him. His phone number may be found on our website, or you may PM me and I will give you his phone number.
As for using the term Catholic…
a) I have never claimed to be Roman Catholic,
b) I have not inferred that I am Roman Catholic,
c) The Supreme Court has stated that one cannot use the name Catholic as a way of trying to claim affilliation with the Roman Catholic Church. We make no such claim.
d) Even if the Supreme Court was to try to tell our group in general or me in particular that we were not allowed to call ourselves Catholic, then I would tell them that they’d have to euthanize me before I’ll stop. Given the state of our legal system in this so called ‘free country’ of ours, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Rob+
.
oops my bad. i didn’t mean anyone should be killed. i didn’t read it that way when i first wrote it. i’m just saying that it is valid for the law to protect the Church from those who would pretend to titles. short of euthanizing you, i support any effort of the court in this regard.so the answer to the question “are you Catholic?” is “no” or “decline to state”?
why exactly would i expect your “bishop” to answer, if you will not?
thank God there is separation between between ‘real’ religion and state. is that it? i am allowing the possibility for you to claim to be Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. but you didn’t.
you should know that “Catholic” is applied to all the rites in communion with Rome. if the supreme court says that you should stop using “Catholic” in a way that implies that you are “rite” that is in communion with Rome, are they just not getting the point of ‘real’ catholicism? frankly, they can use what ever means they see fit to get you to stop deceiving people anywhere and everywhere with your false honorific.
I’ll answer since I am loosely associated with them. Yes they are catholic, just not Roman Catholic, nor are they Eastern Catholic, or Polish Catholic, nor Byzantine Catholic, but they are indeed catholic.so the answer to the question “are you Catholic?” is “no” or “decline to state”?
why exactly would i expect your “bishop” to answer, if you will not?
thank God there is separation between between ‘real’ religion and state. is that it? i am allowing the possibility for you to claim to be Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. but you didn’t.
you should know that “Catholic” is applied to all the rites in communion with Rome. if the supreme court says that you should stop using “Catholic” in a way that implies that you are “rite” that is in communion with Rome, are they just not getting the point of ‘real’ catholicism? frankly, they can use what ever means they see fit to get you to stop deceiving people anywhere and everywhere with your false honorific.
Uh, I must have missed you asking that question.so the answer to the question “are you Catholic?” is “no” or “decline to state”?
why exactly would i expect your “bishop” to answer, if you will not?
Because you never directly asked the question.thank God there is separation between between ‘real’ religion and state. is that it? i am allowing the possibility for you to claim to be Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. but you didn’t.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no competence to deterime what makes or makes not a religious body. To attempt to do so is a violation of our supposed ‘freedom of religion’ in the United States.you should know that “Catholic” is applied to all the rites in communion with Rome. if the supreme court says that you should stop using “Catholic” in a way that implies that you are “rite” that is in communion with Rome, are they just not getting the point of ‘real’ catholicism?
So, you would empower SCOTUS with power over religious bodies? Okay, how about ordering the Eastern Orthodox, the Presbyterians, and others to take the word Catholic out of their books in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. Why not! It could be a deception-in-process.frankly, they can use what ever means they see fit to get you to stop deceiving people anywhere and everywhere with your false honorific.
Then are you saying you are somewhat like an “oratory” of priests?Basically we are a small group of clergy who are striving to follow the Ignatian model of Church Government, who are united together in professing the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, and united together in biblical and liturgical faith.
Please pardon my questions but I cannot access through that link provided so I am asking blind so to speak. Your work sounds admirable but I am trying to figure out if you aren’t Roman Catholic, and you aren’t another rite, and you aren’t in communion with the pope, where do your orders come from?We are not Roman Catholic, and we don’t claim to be united with Rome. We would not claim such a thing unless it were true.
Nevertheless, we have a few parishes, a hospital ministry, a hospice ministry, and some other things going on - including a Religious Order and an active Catechetical and Liturgical formation and development process. We are not large, and we aren’t trying to be. We aren’t interested in converting Roman Catholics, we are interested in a) witnessing to those who do not know God and b) witnessing to those who though knowing God reject the Catholic faith (i.e., protestants).
You can say that again as most of us know.Again, though, we are not Roman, we don’t claim to be in communion with Rome, but as I said elsewhere, it’s hard to find a place to talk about the Catholic faith without being attacked - at least on religous message boards.
As far as I am concerned you have been polite civil and responsive. I see no reason for you to unscubscribe and I’d give it a go here - many fine people -We really do share more in common than we differ on, and visiting here is more fufilling then being on general religious boards. Nevertheless, if all that is going to come of my membership here is threads such as this and the potential for animosity… then I’ll gladly unsubscribe.
while i can’t quote case law, i know that the Church has won rights in this regard. lawyers that view the forums can correct me on this, but i trust people who have informed me on this.Could you provide a link where the supreme court has ruled such? I would find it surprising that the court would take any case dealing with religion especially the word catholic.
well, i may not know much, but i know that that is wrong. communion with rome makes one Catholic. being of the Roman Rite in communion with rome, makes one Roman Catholic. the word in front of the designation “Catholic” signifies the rite which the person is a member of. thus “timothean catholic” signifies nothing.Communion with Rome makes one Roman Catholic, however there are many catholic (think big C and little c like all the discussions on Tradition and tradition)
you do not understand the meaning of Catholicity, which is essentually meaningless if you spell it with a small ‘c’. small c says something about universality (openness) to people and inclusion of all doctirne. it is a matter of doctrine that communion with rome is required to be both catholic and Catholic.I’ll answer since I am loosely associated with them. Yes they are catholic, just not Roman Catholic, nor are they Eastern Catholic, or Polish Catholic, nor Byzantine Catholic, but they are indeed catholic.
It appears to me that he has “stated” as you put it at least three times now.so the answer to the question “are you Catholic?” is “no” or “decline to state”?
So then why criticize him? - he made a point of saying several times now that he is not affiliated nor in communion with Rome. I think that’s clear enough.thank God there is separation between between ‘real’ religion and state. is that it? i am allowing the possibility for you to claim to be Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. but you didn’t.
You should know that the term “catholic” is used by a variety of churches which in no way are in communion with Rome. There are for instance, the Polish National Catholics, the Old Catholics, the Orthodox Old Catholics–the word means universal and while commonly Catholic means Roman or Eastern Rite other churches do use it. That’s how it is.you should know that “Catholic” is applied to all the rites in communion with Rome. if the supreme court says that you should stop using “Catholic” in a way that implies that you are “rite” that is in communion with Rome, are they just not getting the point of ‘real’ catholicism? frankly, they can use what ever means they see fit to get you to stop deceiving people anywhere and everywhere with your false honorific.
Well I will try. Catholicism, (universality) has nothing to do with being unversally open to all people, or doctrines. What it means in the case of the church is that where ever you go universally, a catholic church has the same core beliefs, mainly those beliefs in the Nicene Creed, and the church is made up by the faithful who believe the same thing. That is where the univerality of catholic comes from… The universal church is not limited to just Rome. You will notice the Nicene creed says nothing at all about communion with Rome..
you do not understand the meaning of Catholicity, which is essentually meaningless if you spell it with a small ‘c’. small c says something about universality (openness) to people and inclusion of all doctirne. it is a matter of doctrine that communion with rome is required to be both catholic and Catholic.
would you like to explain the distinction you are making?
Ah thank you - the one you provided works perfectly. I can now “read up”:Moving the thread would be fine.
Also, the problem is that the link posted by an earlier poster is incorrect.
www.christiansynod.org
Rob+