My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Two New Cartoons On Kneeling | Main | Persecuted Priests: A Growing Problem In The United States »

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Comments

JDM

"The question of Petrine primacy will undoubtedly be a focus of intense discussion when..."
That's funny. They'll be asking themselves, "Who IS this guy?"
Really.

Jack

Amazing how anxious the Pope and the entire ecumenical liberal movement is to go and worship as other false faiths, drop titles to appease them (even though they could care less), and travel to Russia of all places to hold meetings with schismatics that really want nothing to do with the church-but mention SSPX, SSPV, CMRI or any other traditional group-and as evidence by this so called 45 minute meeting the Pope gave Fellay, one wonders what the Vatican and the establishment has to fear by these tradionalists. Are they ashamed that these traditionalists are "holding fast to tradition without compromise" and like the kid who has done bad, wants all to join with them in this and envies the clean kid who refuses to drink or do bad?

Just my thoughts

chrysostom

I think this is a good sign. It is an indication of discussion.

Jack

Why not then have this so called "Patriarch" come to the Vatican and show some respect, it is once again an indication of the Vatican Ecumenical movement which became the buzzword after the last council, for unity at any cost with these false faiths-that is except for the Traditionalists who are in many minds the real "Catholics" because they dont compromise.

I wonder what would be of the Catholic faith today if the martyrs and Saints of years gone by had "compromised" their belief in Christ at the behest of the pagans, Moslems and the early Jews? That is why Vatican II and Ecumenism is so dangerous that no Pope before John XXIII would dare touch it and even wrote encyclicals forbidding it. Now we have a Cardinal Kasper participating in "Eucharistic Hospitality" sessions.

Kevin in Dallas

Petrine primacy has been the root of all problems with the Eastern Church since day one. I wouldn't hold my breath on any reconcilliation.

TM Lutas

Jack - It is quite possible that the Pope has dropped this title because he wants to create a reorg within the Latin Rite Church raising patriarchs and synods to better deal with the particular problems of various areas and he didn't want the new titles to be viewed as merely symbolic and without power.

The Orthodox reaction is suspicion. That means that they were likely not consulted in advance, not clued in if this is the beginning of a larger Latin rite reorg, and thus it is very unlikely that the change was made to make them happier. There are certainly enough ways for these personages to have been quietly consulted and the Vatican is certainly politically mature enough to realize the benefit of prior consultation if that was what they were after.

Kevin in Dallas - I do not hold my breath for a reconciliation. I pray for it. I recommend the practice.

T. Shaw

There is history to this east-west schism/reconciliation business that should be recognized. Refer (er, yahoo/google) to "Ferrara-Florence, Council of." I got the following from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed., 2001-05.

"In July, 1439, the pope issued the bull Laetentur Coeli, announcing the religious union of East and West. It had been ratified by both sides, except for a few Orthodox. On the questions at issue the Orthodox conceded that the Western Church might use the Filioque in the creed and unleavened bread at Mass without danger to faith or right custom; the Orthodox also accepted the Western definition of purgatory and the papal supremacy over the patriarchs, without prejudice to patriarchal jurisdiction in the patriarchates. With the departure of the Orthodox from Italy, the party opposed to union on the council’s terms gained power, and, before any lasting strength could be given the union, Constantinople fell to the Turks, who controlled the patriarchate of Constantinople thereafter. After the union was announced, the council continued to sit until 1445, moving to the Lateran in 1443. Its principal business was then to bring back into union with the Holy See the smaller non-Orthodox churches, i.e., Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, and Maronite. Of these, as of the Orthodox, small groups entered the Roman communion, but there was no great reunion. The chief result of the council was probably the increase in prestige it lent to the Holy See. It was also important in bringing Bessarion and other Greeks to Italy, strengthening the cultural connection between East and West."

Finally, forgive me, but regarding the continued obstinacy of the Greeks, et al, would you expect better behavior from people who drink their bath water? Again, sorry!

Richard

What are the Orthodox hoping for? That Catholics will renounce the universal authority of the Pope, come to their senses, and join the Orthodox church(es)?

The Pope is what he is. Why deny it?

A Simple Sinner

Are they ashamed that these traditionalists are "holding fast to tradition without compromise"

No Jack, truning your back on Rome to be "more Catholic than the Pope" has NEVER been part of a Catholic tradition... so holding fast to it, ain't making them extra-super-duper-Catholic.

Jack

Simple

A humble man as myself would never claim to be more Catholic than the Pope-but when a Pope lacks the fortitude, as these post councilar popes seem to-to right the wrongs of a liberal hijacking that has threatened the teachings of the church and the morality of my children-I and millions of other Catholics will do what we need to do to save our souls and find tradition and reverence wherever it may lie

Question simple-with you knowledge of the church and her teachings-if the Pope tomorrow told you to start worshipping as a Hindu-something you (hopefully??) should know is not Catholic-would you do so to be obedient-or realize this Pope and his liberal Cardinals, most of whom were ordained at the height of Vatican II-were either misguided or evil

The same goes for those so called Traditionalists-they have been told to worship in a way that closely resembles Protestanism, changed the sacramental rites, catechism, canon law, customs, allowed homosexuality to run rampant and basically bankrupted diocese after diocese. Does that sound "Catholic" to you?

No, not more Catholic than the Pope-but one can tell and surmise with their backround in theology and Catechism that something just is not right and one does not need to be worshipping false idols and the Jews did in the OT and Catholics now worship Man instead of God (does anyone genuflect anymore when they pass the tabernacle or receive our Lord?)-One does not wait around for punishment to come as some have said has fell upon the church since she decided to "Reject" what was "Old" and Renew

A Simple Sinner

Sorry Jack, I can't go with you on this one.

That is not to say my sympathies aren't with the traditionalists - in fact they are.

Simply, there have been any number of orders and movements and opportunities for SSPX, SSPV and the whole host of traditionalist orders with impaired relations to rome, to heal that rupture. A la the FSSP.

Rather than isolate themselves from Rome, in a true Catholic spirit, they would make better efforts to reconcile.

Rather than effectively telling Rome to "go smoke it" (in word and in deed) orders and groups with true charity, filial love and obedience to authority would make efforts and to find a place inside the church.

Carol

As an Eastern Catholic, I am sick of everyone talking about Orthodox and ROMAN CATHOLICS. The ignorance of Roman Catholics about the Catholic church is sickening. I am Orthodox and Catholic and we do hold to Orthodoxy as it was in the first millenium. Somehow that seems to woosh over Latin's thoughts. I don't know what it will take for full communion to exists when the Latin Catholics all think everyone else is like they are or some kind of novelty and give you a pat on the head "Oh that is nice" and Church history only goes as far back as Thomas Aquinas! and dealt with only from a Western perspective. Will the Latins ever know the wounds they cause to the whole Body of Christ. But when both sides are fine without each other and not knowing who the other is, it will take forever on mere human terms for unity. Lord have mercy! And I wonder, does anyone care if an Eastern Catholic just throughs in the towel and goes back to their Mother Church? Most Latins I know only deal with things on an intellectual basis anyway. No praxis. Being Eastern Catholic can be like having to sleep with a big gorilla, don't wake it.

Carol

As an Eastern Catholic, I am sick of everyone talking about Orthodox and ROMAN CATHOLICS. The ignorance of Roman Catholics about the Catholic church is sickening. I am Orthodox and Catholic and we do hold to Orthodoxy as it was in the first millenium. Somehow that seems to woosh over Latin's thoughts. I don't know what it will take for full communion to exists when the Latin Catholics all think everyone else is like they are or some kind of novelty and give you a pat on the head "Oh that is nice" and Church history only goes as far back as Thomas Aquinas! and dealt with only from a Western perspective. Will the Latins ever know the wounds they cause to the whole Body of Christ. But when both sides are fine without each other and not knowing who the other is, it will take forever on mere human terms for unity. Lord have mercy! And I wonder, does anyone care if an Eastern Catholic just throughs in the towel and goes back to their Mother Church? Most Latins I know only deal with things on an intellectual basis anyway. No praxis. Being Eastern Catholic can be like having to sleep with a big gorilla, don't wake it.

Some Day

Don't to get to angry. It is only a misuse of language. Don't think I'm trying to teach you some thing you must know more than myself
(I am a common, Latin rite, unnfortunately I don't know of the Eastern rites as much as I would like. I once went to a Melkite rite mass. Beutiful.)

But here goes: The schismatics claim the title of champions of Orthodoxy, yet they are not. We call them that out of misuse of language. There is only One True Orthodoxy, and it lies with in the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of what rite we celebrate. Now to avoid confusion, we don't go saying we are orthodox. We simply, but more than sufficiently say we are Catholic, and call the schismatics orthodoxes.
No big deal. No one is hating on the Eastern rites. Now if you mean to say that we don't know a lot about the other rites in communion with the Pope, I agree.
And quite honestly, I don't think there is any, um, disputes among most Latin rites and Eastern rites. There is, well mostly, absoulute lack of what happens to any. I think most lazy small c catholics dont even know that they exist.
I hope I am understanding you well.

Well, God Bless You and please remember me just a bit in your prayers.

Alex

"Finally, forgive me, but regarding the continued obstinacy of the Greeks, et al, would you expect better behavior from people who drink their bath water? Again, sorry!"

Thanks for the intelligent comment. I bet you make such great generalizations for every race.

Pax

ATHELSTAN

Pope Benedict is not and never has been a "supreme pontiff of the universal church". This is an historically inaccurate and a pompous, vainglorious title which reminds me of Napoleon on Elba or St. Helena still in a state of denial. Not realizing he is no longer Emperor of France, and never was master of Europe.

It would have been better and more accurate to have claimed to be "Patriarch of the Latin Rite" and junked these anachronistic claims to universal jurisdiction. If anything, junking "Patriarch of the West" simply makes ecumenical relations with the Orthodox that much more difficult. The opposite of its intended effect.

The pope should have dropped all of his titles with the exception of "servorum servei Dei" dating from Pope Gregory the Great's time. Now, that would have advanced the papacy with not only the Orthodox, but all non-Catholics.

loneman

very, very interestng.
It confirms that the schism of 1054 was NEVER restored,
not in the 1400 ds, neither in V II.

..because after the schism, the church lost her authority to reunite again
( and ecumene is just a hoax)

she definitely lost all her rights during her started inqusition

..only NOW slowly,
when the EU is restored almost,
first His Church ( and that s not the catholic !!) will be one again -
by those, He appoints

forgive me - I m fighting so many years with it

love for you all

Ben7735

The 'Orthodox' schismatic autocephalous structure is a alien perversion of the structure and tradition of the Church. Just as Priests answer to their Bishops, Bishops to their Metropolitans, Metropolitans to their Primates, and Primates to their Patriarchs, Patriarchs must answer to their Pope. Otherwise, there is simply no way to resolve disputes.

What happens if two schismatic Patriarchs should find themselves at loggerheads with one another? The schismatics speak of a "council of the whole church". Who has the authority to call one? They can summon synods, but no Patriarch is bound to the rulings of a synod which he disagrees with, and there is no one with the authority to summon an ecumenical council since the Emperors, who were only ever a Caesaropapist stand in. Because the schismatics have no coherent internal structure, there can be no serious attempt at reconciliation with them.

The Eastern Rite Catholics represent true Orthodoxy, not the schismatic Patriarchates. No latin (and I am one) should ever think to abuse their ancient, beautiful, fully Orthodox and fully Catholic rite.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic