What if for the Feast of St. Andrew (patron of Constantinople), the Pope had restored the Patriarchate of Constantinople? By appointing a Catholic as Patriarch, that is what Pope Leo XIII did for the venerable Church of St. Mark in Alexandria: "We ... from the plenitude of apostolic power restore the Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria and establish it for the Copts. ... To us it is most desired that the dissenting Copts look upon the Catholic Hierarchy in truth before God; that is to say the hierarchy which on account of communion with the Chair of Peter and his successors alone can legitimately restore the Church founded by St. Mark, and alone is heir of the entire memory, whatever has been faithfully handed on to the Alexandrian Patriarchate from those ancient forebears." (Acta Sanctae Sedis 28, p. 257-260, anno 1895-1896)Read the rest here.
Some of the comments are quite revealing.
15 comments:
Rome wants supremacy. Until that shows any sign of changing I think resources would be better spent tending to our own house first.
Some of the comments do themselves little credit fact-wise, and do not even remain in line with official RC teaching.
That said, most are no worse than the comments from my fellow Orthodox vis a vis Roman Catholicism.
It's Rorate Caeli. What did you expect?
I have never understood the logic of Roman Catholic Traddies (you Orthodox have to submit to the Pope, except when it comes to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which is ok to reject, because...well, we don't like it. But you Orthodox have to submit, 'cuz you're schismatic at best and more probably heretics!!)
Has anyone ever had a clear answer from a RC traddie about this, er, set of inconsistencies?
@Stephen
The way I understand it is that one cannot be in communion with Rome if one believes that Vatican II is a robber council. However, the VII documents say nice things about traditional worship (especially of the Eastern variety), so it's ok to be a trad as long as you don't say that the Novus Ordo is wrong.
I wrote a comment taking issue with the claim the Orthodox church is not missionary. I said it is, and rightly so. They didn't post it.
@Stephen - The starting point of the argument seems to be the assumption that everyone accepts Vatican supremacy, and, therefore, it becomes a valid argument to complain that Orthodoxy conducts itself differently, therefore, it's in error - a total circular argument.
So, for example, you have one commenter complaining about the Church's (so-called) "slippery triangulation on contraception." So far as I can tell, the positions of the two bodies are essentially similar, though the Church has seen fit to a) have the matter dealt with pastorally and b) not issue an ongoing stream of high-profile encyclicals addressing the matter such that the Faith is defined in many minds as revolving around the topic.
The approach is different than the one taken by the Vatican, and, therefore, it's wrong and proof that the Orthodox Churches are schismatic. See?
Teena
Rorate routinely censors contrary opinions.
Talk about an Advent miracle...I actually agree with Phil!
As a middle of the line Catholic, I find both tradies and liberals to have one thing in common. They both want to change the system without changing themselves.
The liberals want the church to get with the times, the tradies want the church to get rid of liberal heretics.
Conversion starts with self, not others.
Savvy
Good news, Jason! I'm sure we agree on much more than that. And all disagreements are friendly, I hope.
Always friendly sir!
The starting point of the argument seems to be the assumption that everyone accepts Vatican supremacy,
The ending occurs when, after signifying our lack of acceptance of papalized definitions and premises, we're accused of being polemical and dishonest.
Those RC's who accept the Novus Ordo and Vatican II are at least consistent; if the Pope says it's ok, it's ok for them. The Traddies are having a tough time working through that, which is why they go so ballistic when you point out that the similarities re: the filioque and Papal authority and their beef with VII and the Novus Ordo. I'd love to find one of them who can square that circle, but I haven't yet.
The CDF has called out both traditionalist and progressives on their misinterpretations of the council.
“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found] both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.
What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: “The progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another Church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there”, seeing the council as a Catholic “winter”.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/11/30/prefect-of-the-cdf-says-seeing-vatican-ii-as-a-rupture-is-heresy/
Post a Comment