1892 Statement Re: Ruthenian Married Priests in US

[MarkThompson]

Well how do you like that, the Latin Word Study Tool has wrong information. Now I will know that I can’t rely on it.

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=concesserint&la=la&prior=veniam#lexicon

If you are talking about this –
concesserint: verb 3rd pl perf subj act
concesserint: verb 3rd pl futperf ind act
– then note what I have highlighted.

 

[Vico]

If you are talking about this --concesserint: verb 3rd pl perf subj act
concesserint: verb 3rd pl futperf ind act-- then note what I have highlighted.

Good, I just transposed them then, mentally. Thank you again.

 

[mardukm]

How very nice to treat your eastern half like that

You have to understand how the apostolic Churches traditionally worked. The LOCAL ordinary had the proper say in the matter. The Sacred Congregation (the arm of the papacy) was only reflecting the concerns and desires of the LOCAL bishops. This was NOT a matter of the papacy imposing a unilateral papally-initiated order on the Easterns, but a matter of the Pope acceding to the requests of the LOCAL Latin bishops. It is not correct to blame the papacy for the woes of the Eastern Catholic Church in the U.S during this period. The Pope did a lot to mitigate the rules of the LOCAL Latin bishops, including:
(1) granting several indults from the local law that allowed married Byzantine priests to serve in the U.S., well into the 1930’s;
(2) insisting that Eastern Traditions should be respected;
(3) that no Eastern Christian should be forced to become Latin;
(4) giving Easterns their own bishop in the Latin territory.

Just to put the matter in perspective for you, when Patriarch Michael Cerularius closed down the Latin Churches in his jurisdiction (i.e., the See of Constantinople) - which was the immediate impetus for the sending of Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople - the Pope never once denied his proper authority to do so, but simply appealed to Christian charity and justice to correct his actions. EO apologists today even point out that Cerularius’ actions were canonically justified, even though it was unjust and detrimental to the Latins in his jurisdiction.

The issue here is obedience to the proper LOCAL authority (who were the local Latin bishops). Contrary to the fearmongering of non-Catholics and the exaggerations of certain Catholics, the episode should not so facilely be regarded as an instance of papal overlordship.

This same principle (of obedience to proper LOCAL authority) is evident today, particularly in Ukraine and India, where, to the detriment of Latin-minded Easterns and Orientals, the Pope simply confirmed the decisions of the local Synods to de-Latinize their local Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk