Re: CHAT: Strictly CHAT: Uniates and sacraments (was: Brithenig/Aelyan
| From: | BP Jonsson <bpj@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, April 15, 2000, 9:24 |
|---|
At 22:06 14.4.2000 +0100, Raymond Brown wrote:
>Papal infallibility does _not_ mean a Pope says nothing wrong!
I know. But there is a danger in the fact that the doctrine precludes
stepping back on decisions already made.
>The
>question is just where the Pope and the other Patriarchs & bishops fit into
>this and I don't think the problem is insuperable given goodwill on both
>sides.
Considering the high tension that claims of papal superiority has caused in
the past, both sides stepping over the line of reason and humanity to
vindicate their stance, I find it hard to believe that Rome would admit
that it's only equal to the other patriarchates, or that they would trust
such an admission. IIANM no less will do. Note that both the Coptic and
the Armenian patriarchs call themselves _pope_ in English these days! I
know these two were in schism already before the Great Schism, but still...
> >and accepting that the holders of all the ancient
> >patriarchates assume the titles_papa_ and
>
>In fact all priests in the Greek tradition hold the title :)
Yeah. Ergo I've had beers with a pope! :-) (On Samos in 88, if you wonder...)
> >_vicarius dei_ would be the very least, I think.
>
>Not one of the Pope's titles. But even 'vicarius Christi' is not IMO
>insuperable - indeed to some extent other Patriarchs are, as are bishops.
Well, I can't see how Rome can avoid stepping back on the *some* if a
concord is to be made.
> >I you are saying that you would prefer that to the present state of affairs
> >I suppose you are quite in a minority, aren't you?
>
>Not at all - my experience is quite to the contrary. IME the divisions of
>Christendom are are scandal and there is a great desire to heal the ancient
>schism.
Ironic that the GS was to no little extent caused by the personal and
worldly ambitions of those who were then at the helm in Rome and
Constantinople -- all three of them, since the patriarch was already in
schism with the basileus! You who are now Catholics and Orthodox live with
the result of the power struggle of those men. I wonder if the efforts of
the basileus Manuel II in face of the Turkish conquest are anything to
build on?
>I remember once being told I'd never hear the Mass celebrated in English
>during my lifetime. How wrong that person was! And I most sincerely hope
>you are wrong about my having to be well nigh immortal in this world to see
>the great schism healed.
>
> >(Or do you perhaps have a Neon Henotikon and a plan to become ho Basileus
> >ton Basileon hid away in your drawer? ;-)
>
>To which at 2:11 pm -0400 14/4/00, John Cowan replied:
>[....]
> >Nahh. Ray told us long ago that he belongs to the populares, not the
> >optimates.
So did C. Iulius Caesar, remember! ;-)
>Quite right too. Kings and emperors have worked enough mischief in the
>history of Christendom (and elsewhere) - Enough of them!!!
Yeah. (With the exception of M. Verus Antoninus Aurelius, please! (Who,
however should have spent more time with his son!)
>No - no Neon Henotikon, no King of Kings - just faith, and hope and love,
>and a belief in the power of the Holy Spirit.
>
>I never rule out miracles.
You sound like the Dalai Lama when he says that he hopes that wisdom will
conquer the hearts of the Chinese! If I agree with him I have to agree
with you!
/BP
B.Philip Jonsson <mailto:bpj@...>bpj@netg.se
<mailto:melroch@...>melroch@my-deja.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
Anant' avanaute quettalmar! \ \
__ ____ ____ _____________ ___ __ __ __ / /
\ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
/ / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
/ /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Melarocco\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
/_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine__ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
I neer Pityancalimeo\ \_____/ /ar/ /_atar Mercasso naan
~~~~~~~~~Cuinondil~~~\_______/~~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda cuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)