D
dcointin
Guest
Could you recommend something more general in scope that just a treatment of infallibility? I’d like to have a more comprehensive understanding of the history and functions of the papacy generally. Thanks!
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Some Books:
Jesus, Peter & the Keys - A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess. (with Imprimatur).
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - The Early Church Was The Catholic Church, by Whitehead.
Inside the Vatican: The politics and organization of the Catholic Church, by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
It is true that what is going on in the United States today, and in other lands that are traditionally considered to be in the jurisdiction of the Latin Church, has no support from the early Church. But what has no support from the early Church is the fact that we as Oriental and Eastern Catholics even HAVE bishops in the traditional territory of the Latin Church. It is the claim that we (as non-Latins) have an absolute right to select our own bishops in the traditional territory of the Latin Church that has absolutely no support from the praxis of the early Church.
I should point out that the Oriental Orthodox have had an identical experience. As noted, the standard of the early Church was that Christians of Ritual Church A who came into the territorial jurisdiction of Ritual Church B would simply come under the omophor of the bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch of Ritual Church B. This came to head in the Oriental Orthodox communion after the turn of the first millenium, when more Syriac Orthodox migrated into the jurisdictional territory of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Eventually, an agreement was reached that allowed for the Syriac Orthodox within the jurisdiction of the Coptic Orthodox Church to be under the direct omophor of an Apostolic exarch from the Syriac Orthodox Church. Similar issues arose in the Jerusalem Church among the Oriental Orthodox, which was traditionally under the omophor of the Syriac Orthodox.
The idea of different Ritual Churches within the territorial jurisdiction of another Ritual Church is unknown in modern Eastern Orthodoxy. So it is unfair to impose modern EO standards on Churches that have a different historic and ecclesiastical experience (such as the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches).
I believe our very wise Catholic hierarchs realize this full well, which is why in the recent Middle East Synod, our Oriental and Eastern bishops did not seek to change the procedure for the election of bishops in the diaspora (which involves the Pope), but only requested that the process be speeded up.
CONTINUED
Brother Alex hit the nail on the head. It is about the notion of “territory.” It cannot be denied that when Eastern and Oriental Catholics came to the United States, they came into the jurisdictional territory of LATIN bishops, and therefore of the Latin Catholic Church who has the bishop of Rome as their Patriarch. In the first millenium, when the Church was united, when Christian A of a certain Ritual Church A came into the territorial jurisdiction of another Ritual Church B, Christian A came under the omophor of the bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch of Ritual Church B. Christian A simply became a member of Ritual Church B. If enough Christians from Ritual Church A came into the territorial jurisdiction of Ritual Church B, the bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch of Ritual Church B would provIde for the ritual needs of those Christians from Ritual Church A, BUT THOSE CHRISTIANS WOULD REMAIN UNDER THE OMOPHOR OF THE BISHOP/METROPOLITAN/PATRIARCH OF RITUAL CHURCH B. There was NO provision in the early Church for Christians of Ritual Church A to have their OWN bishop of their own Ritual A within the territorial jurisdiction of Ritual Church B. I am sure you are aware that EO apologists point out that when Patriarch Cerularius closed down the Latin-Rite Churches in his jurisdictional territory (which prompted the Pope to send Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to negotiate the matter), he was well within his canonical rights to do so. And, if you are not already aware, I need to point out that when the Pope sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to negotiate the matter, he did not object to Patriarch Cerularius’ closing down of the Latin-Rite churches on the basis that Cerularius had no right to do so, but objected on a moral basis that the Pope has himself never closed down Greek-Rite churches in his own jurisdictional territory.
It is true that what is going on in the United States today, and in other lands that are traditionally considered to be in the jurisdiction of the Latin Church, has no support from the early Church. But what has no support from the early Church is the fact that we as Oriental and Eastern Catholics even HAVE bishops in the traditional territory of the Latin Church. It is the claim that we (as non-Latins) have an absolute right to select our own bishops in the traditional territory of the Latin Church that has absolutely no support from the praxis of the early Church.
I should point out that the Oriental Orthodox have had an identical experience. As noted, the standard of the early Church was that Christians of Ritual Church A who came into the territorial jurisdiction of Ritual Church B would simply come under the omophor of the bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch of Ritual Church B. This came to head in the Oriental Orthodox communion after the turn of the first millenium, when more Syriac Orthodox migrated into the jurisdictional territory of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Eventually, an agreement was reached that allowed for the Syriac Orthodox within the jurisdiction of the Coptic Orthodox Church to be under the direct omophor of an Apostolic exarch from the Syriac Orthodox Church. Similar issues arose in the Jerusalem Church among the Oriental Orthodox, which was traditionally under the omophor of the Syriac Orthodox.
The idea of different Ritual Churches within the territorial jurisdiction of another Ritual Church is unknown in modern Eastern Orthodoxy. So it is unfair to impose modern EO standards on Churches that have a different historic and ecclesiastical experience (such as the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches).
I believe our very wise Catholic hierarchs realize this full well, which is why in the recent Middle East Synod, our Oriental and Eastern bishops did not seek to change the procedure for the election of bishops in the diaspora (which involves the Pope), but only requested that the process be speeded up.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
So why do I feel the present state of affairs can change? Several reasons:
(1) The fact that the Pope even provided bishops for Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the traditional territory of the Latin lands in the first place, despite the vehement objections of the local Latin bishops.
(2) The fact that the Pope has given up the title “Patriarch of the West.” In my POV, the bishop of Rome, by giving up that title, has given up TERRITORIAL jurisdiction in lands outside Western Europe, though indeed maintaining PERSONAL jurisdiction on all Latins. The possible avenues for the strengthening of Eastern and Oriental identity and rights in the traditional Latin non-European territories are boundless.
(3) The fact that we have a non-Latin sui juris Church today wherein the numerous Latins in its territorial jurisdiction are under the omophor of the non-Latin hierarchy - i.e., the Ethiopian Catholic Church.
Slowly, but surely, it is coming around to a more stable ecclesiastical atmosphere that recognizes and respects the equal rights of the non-Latin Churches with the Latin Church. But we have to recognize and appreciate right now that the fact that Easterns and Oriental Christians even have their own bishops within the traditionally Latin jurisdictional territories is BECAUSE OF the pro-Eastern/Oriental sympathies of our Popes. The Popes have introduced an ecclesiastical reality into the Catholic Church different from the standard of the early Church IN FAVOR OF our Eastern and Oriental Churches. I suppose we as Easterns/Orientals could say this was a worthy exercise of oikonomia by the Pope.
If you have more questions, they are always welcome, brother Don.
Blessings,
Marduk
So why do I feel the present state of affairs can change? Several reasons:
(1) The fact that the Pope even provided bishops for Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the traditional territory of the Latin lands in the first place, despite the vehement objections of the local Latin bishops.
(2) The fact that the Pope has given up the title “Patriarch of the West.” In my POV, the bishop of Rome, by giving up that title, has given up TERRITORIAL jurisdiction in lands outside Western Europe, though indeed maintaining PERSONAL jurisdiction on all Latins. The possible avenues for the strengthening of Eastern and Oriental identity and rights in the traditional Latin non-European territories are boundless.
(3) The fact that we have a non-Latin sui juris Church today wherein the numerous Latins in its territorial jurisdiction are under the omophor of the non-Latin hierarchy - i.e., the Ethiopian Catholic Church.
Slowly, but surely, it is coming around to a more stable ecclesiastical atmosphere that recognizes and respects the equal rights of the non-Latin Churches with the Latin Church. But we have to recognize and appreciate right now that the fact that Easterns and Oriental Christians even have their own bishops within the traditionally Latin jurisdictional territories is BECAUSE OF the pro-Eastern/Oriental sympathies of our Popes. The Popes have introduced an ecclesiastical reality into the Catholic Church different from the standard of the early Church IN FAVOR OF our Eastern and Oriental Churches. I suppose we as Easterns/Orientals could say this was a worthy exercise of oikonomia by the Pope.
Our Ruthenian members can speak more on this (and I hope they chime in), but I can assure you 100% that the changes were not imposed by the Pope.
There was no Eastern hierarchy in the U.S. when the matter first came to a head. All Eastern Christians were under the omophor of the local Latin bishops. All the Latin bishops (except for one that I am aware of) did not want any married clergy in their territories. So this was the rule in the U.S. The pope did not know anything about the situation initially. There are records of complaints from Easterns to Eastern bishops in Europe, but there is no record of any response from them - and rightly so, IMO, since these Eastern bishops knew full well that their expatriate members were now under the omophor of the local Latin bishop. Sometime in the last decade of the 19th century, the Easterns appealed to the secular government of their home countries, and it was the secular governments that forwarded the concerns of the Eastern Christians to the Pope. The Pope accordingly sent an Apostolic Visitor to the U.S. to investigate the matter. The investigation resulted in the decree Ea Semper, which, while affirming the existing policy of the Latin bishops, made the prohibition on married clergy dependant on the circumstances of the times, and gave the Eastern Catholics their own bishop. Naturally, the Latin bishops did not receive Ea Semper very well. A later decree Cum data fuerit, whose provisions were only effective for a few years, reaffirmed the existing policy of prohibition of married priests. Cum data fuerit was renewed two more times, its provisions expiring in 1949. During these years, the Pope granted several indults from the “law of the land” that actually permitted several married Eastern priests to serve in the United States.
The Ukrainian and Syro-Malankara Catholics are the ones to best ask about this. It is their Churches that have experienced an organized opposition to de-Latinization. In both cases, groups have appealed to the Pope to permit them to retain local Latinizations, despite the plenary decisions of their respective Synods. The Pope has simply sided with the decisions of the territorial Synods. The same situation applies in the case with the prohibition of married clergy in the traditional territory of the Latin Church.
If you have more questions, they are always welcome, brother Don.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
Mardukm,
Even though the territories of the Churches sui iuris overlap one other, the ancient territories are to be observed due to decision of the early councils. Prior to the completion of the CCEO, eastern bishops had a petition allow extention of the Patriarchal territories, but when Pope John Paul II mentioned that it was from the early councils they withdrew it. It is called principio della non-estensione. This principle was also expressed in Orientalium Ecclesiarum* (Decree on the Eastern Churches). I think it is unlikely that it* will be overturned in light of the age of the principle.
Missionary activity is regulated by two Catholic dicastries: the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (within the ancient oriental territories) and the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. See Ad Gentes:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html
Even though the territories of the Churches sui iuris overlap one other, the ancient territories are to be observed due to decision of the early councils. Prior to the completion of the CCEO, eastern bishops had a petition allow extention of the Patriarchal territories, but when Pope John Paul II mentioned that it was from the early councils they withdrew it. It is called principio della non-estensione. This principle was also expressed in Orientalium Ecclesiarum* (Decree on the Eastern Churches). I think it is unlikely that it* will be overturned in light of the age of the principle.
Missionary activity is regulated by two Catholic dicastries: the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (within the ancient oriental territories) and the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. See Ad Gentes:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Vico
Blessings,
Marduk
I think you are right. In light of the proposition you quoted in the other thread, the Middle East Synod obviously did not ask to upend the ancient canons by asking for greater territorial jurisdiction, but simply asked for greater personal jurisdiction in the diaspora.
Thank you for this info. What is your opinion on the claim I sometimes (if not often) hear from non-Latin Catholics that Rome has tried to restrict non-Latin Catholic missionary activity? Is that really true, or is the “restriction” actually due to the social dynamics with the local Latin churches?
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
Missionary activity is regulated by the Holy See everywhere (either through Cong. Prop. Faith, or Cong. for the Eastern Churches). Many bad feelings occurred in the Rusyn immigrants over not being able to have jurisdiction in the USA. Bishop of St. Paul, John Ireland is the one that would not accept Fr. Alexis Toth in the USA, Fr. Toth had a letter claiming jurisdiction (1889) from his Bishop in Hungary. But we know that the USA was not a jurisdiction of the Hungarian Greek-Catholics at that time rather it was the Latin Metropolitan Archdiocese of Saint Paul. Due to the massive conversion of those Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy in 1892, Pope Leo XIII took actions, delivering 1894, Christi Nomen. By 1917 the Congregation for Oriental Churches was established along with codification of the first canon law CIC.
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13EAS.HTM
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Vico,
Blessings,
Marduk
I have not read the last two books you mention. Personally, I do not like Jesus, Peter & the Keys. For example, its quotations from St. Augustine are wrenched out of its proper collegial contexts. I certainly fully appreciate the book for its solid proofs on the reality of papal primacy, and I understand that that is the express purpose of the book. But I don’t believe it does justice to the early Church’s reality of papal primacy within collegiality. In that regard, I think it does a lot to perpetuate an Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
D
dcointin
Guest
Are there any you could recommend for me? Thanks!Or, rather, misunderstanding of the papacy.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status