Their record is not completely untarnished. It was a Franciscan bishop, Matthew Saraceni, who completely abolished the Byzantine rite in Rossano in Calabria in 1461 (Fortescue, The Uniate Eastern Churches, p. 109). The Franciscan clergy of Galatina took over the Byzantine churches in that town and enforced the Latin liturgy in 1507 (Fortescue, op. cit., 111).
Interesting. I suppose I should note here that I wasn’t trying to defend the Franciscans. History indeed has shown that they, too, have had their darker moments. But of course that reference from Fortescue did not involve the Commissariat of the Holy Land, (I seem to think Egypt falls under that particular jurisdiction), which seems to (generally) have a bit more sensitivity.
Regarding the Coptic Catholic Liturgy of Saint Mark (Saint Cyril) from the Catholic Encyclopedia, dated before the recensions were published in 1941, etc.:
lol I certainly have noticed - it could have a lot to do with it.
The Latinizations were not spearheaded by the Franciscans, but by indigenous Catholic Copts. The Catholic Copts petitioned Pope Leo XIII to establish a Patriarchate in 1895. Pope Leo approved it, and the ensuing Synod headed by Cyril Maqar introduced a host of Latinizations in the new Coptic Catholic Patriarchate.
I agree with you, but would not consider that viewpoint as tantatmount to the Absolutist Petrine position. I’ll give you an example, which I mentioned in an earlier post. A few months ago, I debated some Latins in the Traditional Catholic Forum who claimed that the Pope’s authority depends on his will. I opposed that position by stating that the Pope’s authority does not depend on his will, but on the needs of the Church, and does not and cannot go beyond that. Trust me, I had a hard time of it, but the ones I was debating eventually came around to the position I proposed. I would say that the ones I was debating held an Absolutist Petrine position, while I was proposing a High Petrine position. The Absolutist Petrine position interprets jurisdiction in terms of control (i.e., it is a matter of the Pope’s will), while the High Petrine position interprets jurisdiction in terms of solicitude (i.e., his authority only extends as far as what builds up the Church). Indeed, a great Latin Saint and Doctor, St. Robert Bellarmine, asserted that if the Pope tears down the Church, we are bound by conscience to oppose him.
I am certainly sympathetic to the Traditions of my Byzantine brethren, but I oppose schism. I don’t understand why the Pope gets such guff over the matter. The blame rests squarely with Archbishop Ireland - and not just Archbishop Ireland, but basically all the North American bishops at the time. In fact, the Pope mitigated the situation for the Easterns. Ea Semper is couched in language which made the prohibition dependant on the condition of the times, and was thus not an absolute bar to ordination of married men in North America forever and ever. Further, as a result of the whole debacle, the Pope gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territory of another bishop. All this did not sit too well with the Latin bishops. Many people really have a misunderstanding of the papacy if they think it is all about control. Vatican 1 asserts that the Pope cannot impede the divinely-given authority of local bishops. And every Latin bishop in North American at the time really did not want any married priests in their districts. What could the Pope do? The Pope really did as much as a he could for the Eastern Catholics, given the circumstances. And I think he deserves a thank you instead of being villified by certain circles in Eastern Christendom (Catholic and Orthodox).
I am not altogether certain I can accept Unam Sanctam as an ex cathedra declaration - just for the reason that it was not addressed to the universal Church, but to King Philip of France. I can go as far as admitting that it was an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, but I find it hard to see how it could be an ex cathedra decree - for the reason mentioned above. Of course, I assume that “subject to the Roman Pontiff” was meant by Pope Boniface to mean “subject to the orthodox teaching of the Roman Pontiff.” I mean, it is certainly not necessary for salvation that we jump off a bridge if the Pope says so, so the “subjection” must refer to only those things that are actually necessary for salvation, as the Decree itself states (I guess you can say it is self-referential).
I certainly agree with you. The reason I agree is because of the principle I mentioned earlier - the Pope’s authority only extends as far as what builds up the Church. Abolishing the Rites of a particular Church does not build up, but destroy. Ergo, he has no authority to do such a thing.
Also Clement VIII was the Pope at the time of the Union of Brest (1595 Poland-Lithuania) and also supported the work of the Jesuits to bring the Syro-Malabar Christians of India into union with Rome, Synod of Diamper (1599) but did not confirm the latinizing decrees.
Mar Emmanuel was elected in 2003, the same year that his predecessor passed away. Are you sure you don’t mean The Syriac CC? The case there was that Mar Ignatious Peter VII Abdel-Ahad resigned in Feb 2008. After almost a year of no action on the part of the Synod, PP Benedict XVI put his foot down and forced it to convene, when the current Patriarch, Mar Ignatious Yousef Younan was elected in Jan of 2009 (I think I have the dates straight).
Perhaps the latinizations weren’t “confirmed” as such, but still the Syro-Malabars were latinized to the n-th degree, even to the point of moving the Missal from the “epistle” side to the “Gospel” side and back again.
Two Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs are listed below with a 13 month vacant See between after HB Patriarch Audishu died:
That may well be, but notice that [post=7512414]mardukm[/post] said recent.
Ha, ha! True. But he thinks on a grand scale, could recent be since … 1552.
I would say that’s a false dichotomy - the Pope’s will depends on the needs of the Church. The only exceptions I can think of would be political issues - for example, the frequent machinations of Renaissance and Medici Popes. In matters other than matters of faith, the Pope simply does not have any authority. Plenty of Italian families - including that of St. Thomas Aquinas (and incidentally, another noble family which my mother’s side claims descent from) fought various Popes in battle, and did no wrong by doing so. The Pope’s jurisdiction only covers matters of faith (including episcopal investiture and ecclesial governance), and in that area his authority is absolute. I expect you will try to nuance that statement a bit. The Pope can certainly make prudential errors in matters of Church governance, but we still have to obey him; the Holy Spirit prevents him from making such errors in the form of dogmatic declarations.
But to what extent and by what means are we to oppose him? I certainly believe that Vatican II tore down the Latin Church; I do not believe Archbishop Lefebvre was justified in going into schism in order to preserve his Society which opposed it.
I strongly agree with this - but I do not believe (and you indicated in the second half of your post) that none such “Absolutist Petrine” excesses have ever occurred.
Completely agreed - and I would welcome more such solicitude if the Holy Father were to strongly condemn Latinizations and call our bishops to account for continuing to permit them.
Does Vatican I say that the Holy Spirit will not let the Pope impede the divinely-given authority of local bishops, or that if the Pope tries to do so his authority will simply be legitimately disobeyed (as when an ordinary bishop, one who is not the final appeal in the Church, tries to violate someone’s canonical rights)? Can you think of any historical examples where the Pope has tried to impede the divinely-given authority of local bishops?
The “subjection” could only be in matters of faith or morals, since those are the only things the Church has been given authority over, according to my understanding of Vatican I. I have a difficult time saying that it is not an ex cathedra decree given the terms “declare, define, and pronounce”. I do understand your argument about its universality, but my it seems to me the more likely opinion that because it concerns “the salvation of every human creature” it is a universal statement even though the words were spoken only in condemnation of Philip the Fair, just as the dogmatic definitions of Nicea are universal, infallible statements despite the fact that they were only spoken on the opportunity to condemn the Arians. (And, likewise, Trent is universal and infallible, even for Eastern Christians where Protestantism was never an issue [setting aside the occasional Calvinist Patriarch of Constantinople, of course!].)
In that case I guess the question of “Absolute Petrine” versus “High Petrine” views only bear practical differences in the case that this overreaching does happen in the future. For my part, I’m content to wait to cross that bridge if it comes, and pray to the Holy Spirit that it won’t.
I just now caught this, and I’m not sure what it means. Truth to tell, despite the 16th century latinizations and such, very little was destroyed, although some things may have re-worded. The destruction has come many years later with the unending wave of post-conciliar neo-latinization.
Very quickly - from what I’ve read, the Maronites had to destroy many Syriac manuals from their libraries that had the taint of “monophysitism.” However, IIRC, this wasn’t exactly opposed by the local clergy. I’m not trying to lay blame on anyone for anything.
