Orthodox Church and the Catholic claim to bind and loose

[peary2]

Here’s the question:
Does the papal power of binding and loosing give the Vatican disciplinary control over the Eastern Churches in matters such as liturgy and celibacy? It seems like the present interpretation is yes, since the Vatican turned down a request from the Eastern Catholic Churches to have optional celibacy for their priests.

Eastern Catholic churches DO have optional celibacy for their priests.

 

[jimmy]

Eastern Catholic churches DO have optional celibacy for their priests.

Theoretically yes, but many of them do not because Rome has decreed that they are not allowed to have married priests in the new world, which is where they are all moving. Maronites, Chaldeans, and Melkites are all moving from their homelands and so they are going to be forced to hold to the Latin tradition.

 

[Harpazo]

Theoretically yes, but many of them do not because Rome has decreed that they are not allowed to have married priests in the new world, which is where they are all moving. Maronites, Chaldeans, and Melkites are all moving from their homelands and so they are going to be forced to hold to the Latin tradition.

Sadly, this is all too true. When I was attending the Maronite parish in town, I asked Abuna about it and he said that Bp. Gregory would not ordain any married men. I also have a good friend from Ave Maria who is a Melkite and his father went to seminary to become a priest, and right when he was about to be ordained, the Pope told him that he couldn’t (he had to ask permission). If I remember correctly, his bishop told him to go to Haifa to be ordained. Now he’s a priest at a parish in Northern VA.

I do think the overarching powers of Rome (in the past and in the present, although it has diminished some in the present) towards the Eastern Catholics would be enough to make the Orthodox extremely cautious.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[bobzills]

Eastern Catholic churches DO have optional celibacy for their priests.

The Pope has the plenitude of supreme disciplinary power, ordinary and immediate over all the Churches altogether and indvidually and over all the pastors and all the faithful so he can change the rules anytime he wants to and according to that he has the power and the authority to throw out the Liturgy of St. Basil and impose the New Mass on the Eastern Orthodox if they were to agree to a reunion? Is that not correct? Or is it wrong?
From the First Vatican Council:
“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.”
Does this then mean that you are subject to an ecclesiastical curse if you fail to agree with this full and supreme jurisdictional and disciplinary power of the Pope?

 

[Hesychios]

Theoretically yes, but many of them do not because Rome has decreed that they are not allowed to have married priests in the new world, which is where they are all moving. Maronites, Chaldeans, and Melkites are all moving from their homelands and so they are going to be forced to hold to the Latin tradition.

Another worrisome fact associated with this is that the Pope erects all new eparchies and appoints all bishops in the diaspora for these churches!

That means that as the population shifts out from their original native homelands (or possibly even grows in the diaspora through evangelization) the number of bishops in the synod appointed by the Pope will increase. The papacy gains an ever increasing influence over the internal decision making in these churches.

This was illustrated clearly when the Zoghby Initiative was considered by the Melkite Synod. The only two votes against it were from bishops in the diaspora appointed by the Pope.

For the Ruthenians, it is as if they have no homeland at all. The Pope appoints all of their bishops anywhere in the world (including the European homeland), and has complete power to erect, divide or suppress dioceses for them.

Likewise for the Saint Thomas churches of India. They don’t even get the whole country as a homeland, one province is all. The papacy controls the church outside of Kerala.

 

[bobzills]

Another worrisome fact associated with this is that the Pope erects all new eparchies and appoints all bishops in the diaspora for these churches!

That means that as the population shifts out from their original native homelands (or possibly even grows in the diaspora through evangelization) the number of bishops in the synod appointed by the Pope will increase. The papacy gains an ever increasing influence over the internal decision making in these churches.

This was illustrated clearly when the Zoghby Initiative was considered by the Melkite Synod. The only two votes against it were from bishops in the diaspora appointed by the Pope.

For the Ruthenians, it is as if they have no homeland at all. The Pope appoints all of their bishops anywhere in the world (including the European homeland), and has complete power to erect, divide or suppress dioceses for them.

Likewise for the Saint Thomas churches of India. They don’t even get the whole country as a homeland, one province is all. The papacy controls the church outside of Kerala.

At first glance, the efforts at reunion appear to be one-sided. The Catholic Church enthusiastically supports reunion, while the Orthodox Churches are hesitating and are finding reasons to avoid the reunion. However, as we look at the situation further, we get a better picture of the reasons for this reluctance and suspicion on the part of the Orthodox.

 

[jimmy]

At first glance, the efforts at reunion appear to be one-sided. The Catholic Church enthusiastically supports reunion, while the Orthodox Churches are hesitating and are finding reasons to avoid the reunion. However, as we look at the situation further, we get a better picture of the reasons for this reluctance and suspicion on the part of the Orthodox.

Very true. How can the west expect reunion with the Orthodox with the position the Eastern Catholic Churches are put in? Our very existence is threatened by the authority of Rome. They say that we should return to our traditions but they are the ones appointing our bishops and declaring that we can not have married priests.