Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

If EMHCs have an extraordinary right to dispense communion that has now become ordinary to see through exercise of the extraordinary right, what would stop the pope from using his extraordinary rights ordinarily?

First, the Latin Church uses extraordinary ministers in an ordinary manner at this point because she considers herself under a generally extraordinary circumstance - the shortage of priests.

Second extraordinary ministers are not named thus because of an extraordinary right, but because of their extraordinary use.

Second, there is no question of the Pope using his extraordinary rights ordinarily. It is an ORDINARY right USED extraordinarly. The canons and his divine obligation to preserve the prerogatives of his fellow bishops circumscribe his extraordinary use of his ordinary right.

In contrast, an ordinary bishop (s distinct from a coadjutor or auxiliary bishop) always has the ORDINARY use of his ordinary rights.

EMHCs have a check and balance, not currently employed but still there, with the magesterium who can limit or forbid it. What would balance the pope? The history of the Eastern Catholic Churches in America, including cum data feurit, would say nothing. That violated their treaty of union, but the Ukrainians were still expected to follow it. Why?

I believe the difference is that the Ukrainians (and the Ruthenians) are not patriarchal Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

I believe the difference is that the Ukrainians (and the Ruthenians) are not patriarchal Churches.

The treaty was with the Ukrainian Church, patriarch or not. The patriarchal Churches, such as the Melkites, were also under the ban. You believe the pope has an ordinary right to tell the Melkite patriarch that he may not allow a particular discipline such as married priests?

 

[Hesychios]

… What would balance the pope? The history of the Eastern Catholic Churches in America, including cum data feurit, would say nothing. That violated their treaty of union, but the Ukrainians were still expected to follow it. Why?

Perhaps because bishops +Takach and +Bohachevsky were Papal appointees with limited authority, and no allies in Rome?

Plus, the Czarist regime in Russia fell to the Bolsheviks, who constrained the Russian Orthodox church, making the Russian Metropolia unattractive as an alternative for unhappy Greek Catholics. Time to turn the screws…

*Michael

*http://www.stjosaphateparchy.org/stdemetrius/images/altar.jpg

 

[mardukm]

The treaty was with the Ukrainian Church, patriarch or not. The patriarchal Churches, such as the Melkites, were also under the ban.

Someone more informed of the situation of Eastern European Catholics will have to respond to you. I was just offering a possible answer to your question.

You believe the pope has an ordinary right to tell the Melkite patriarch that he may not allow a particular discipline such as married priests?

I believe the Pope has that right in places outside the traditional territories of the Patriarchs (because those territories are traditionally considered part of the Latin Patriarchate). I do not believe he has such a right within the canonical territories of the Patriarchs.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

I believe the Pope has that right in places outside the traditional territories of the Patriarchs (because those territories are traditionally considered part of the Latin Patriarchate). I do not believe he has such a right within the canonical territories of the Patriarchs.

So can the Melkite patriarch tell the pope that there aren’t to be any celibate priests in the Latin parishes in his canonical territory to avoid confusing the faithful? He should be able to if it is an issue of territory.

 

[mardukm]

So can the Melkite patriarch tell the pope that there aren’t to be any celibate priests in the Latin parishes in his canonical territory to avoid confusing the faithful? He should be able to if it is an issue of territory.

It’s not a matter of approaching the Pope. It is part of Canon law. A balance between kindness and obedience to Tradition must be maintained. Canon law states bishops are required to accomodate those in their territory who may be of other rites. If ENOUGH Latin Catholics exist in his territories, he should give them a celibate priest according to their Tradition (if they ask for it). The same if enough Eastern/Oriental Catholics exist in a Latin diocese - he should give them the option of having a married priest (if they ask for it).

In any case, if there were any Latin parishes that existed in the Melkite territory, they would probably be there because they were allowed in the first place by the Melkite Patriarch, or they were already in place from before the union (unlikely(?)). It would be within the Melkite Patriarch’s rights to abolish those Latin parishes (since they would have been set up by his authority in the first place).

Does that address your concerns?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

It would be within the Melkite Patriarch’s rights to abolish those Latin parishes (since they would have been set up by his authority in the first place).

That is very interesting! Thank you!

So he could allow or disallow them in his territory, but he couldn’t tell them what to do while they are there? It seems the pope can allow, disallow, and tell them what to do, even despite their own canon law and treaties of union to the contrary. Am I understanding correctly that you are saying this is the way it should be?

 

[mardukm]

That is very interesting! Thank you!

So he could allow or disallow them in his territory, but he couldn’t tell them what to do while they are there? It seems the pope can allow, disallow, and tell them what to do, even despite their own canon law and treaties of union to the contrary. Am I understanding correctly that you are saying this is the way it should be?

Let me explain be rewording your first sentence in the second paragraph: "So he could allow or disallow them in his territory, but he couldn’t tell them what to do if they were already there before his canonical territory was established. This is ONLY assuming that the Pope chose to keep those churches under his omophorion. However, this has never happened, to my knowledge. When the canonical territories of the Catholic Patriarchs were established (basically, along the same lines as those established by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium), there were no Latin Catholics in those territories. If there WERE Latins in those territories, he would be obliged by the evangelical law of charity to provide for them according to their own rite if those Latin Catholics requested it at the time.

Could he choose to violate the evangelical law of charity? I suppose he could, but that might cause a schism.

That being said, I hope you can appreciate the tremendous problem and danger of drawing conclusions based on mere possibilities of things happening. It certainly goes against the Lord’s exhortation to worry only about today, for tomorrow has troubles of its own. This, IMHO, is the meat of non-Catholic polemics against the papacy.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

It is very interesting, but it doesn’t quite answer it.

What I am trying to comprehend, for instance, is the last century of Eastern Catholicism in the US based on the opening post. If I am understanding it correctly, which I might not be, it would mean that the pope acted properly in issuing *cum data fuerit *because it was within his scope of ordinary powers. Or that Archbishop Ireland acted appropriately because he was the ordinary of the area. I don’t agree if that is the case because I believe that they were stepping into the Eastern Church’s administrative functions which did not concern them and were therefore not within their jurisdiction.

 

[Aramis]

It is very interesting, but it doesn’t quite answer it.

What I am trying to comprehend, for instance, is the last century of Eastern Catholicism in the US based on the opening post. If I am understanding it correctly, which I might not be, it would mean that the pope acted properly in issuing *cum data fuerit *because it was within his scope of ordinary powers. Or that Archbishop Ireland acted appropriately because he was the ordinary of the area. I don’t agree if that is the case because I believe that they were stepping into the Eastern Church’s administrative functions which did not concern them and were therefore not within their jurisdiction.

Many latinizations were imposed from within, not by powers outside the various eastern churches.

The decision to ban married clergy in the US was made at the nearly unanimous request of the US Bishops. Excluding, of course, the one or two eastern rite bishops present at the time.

 

[Hesychios]

Many latinizations were imposed from within, not by powers outside the various eastern churches.

The decision to ban married clergy in the US was made at the nearly unanimous request of the US Bishops. Excluding, of course, the one or two eastern rite bishops present at the time.

I don’t follow this.

From within what…the Eastern churches themselves…or within the United States of America?

Sounds like the tyranny of the majority to me, how about you?

I think that after a few decades of this, the only candidates considered for bishop in the Byzantine-Slavonic Catholic churches of North America were pro-Mandatory Celibacy (some of the older ones still are) and favoring other Latinizations as well, but that is not how it started out. The first bishops were appointed by Rome, but from European candidates who knew the tradition, and the promises.

Around the world we can find examples of predominately Roman Catholic Conferences of Bishops petitioning Rome to somehow restrain and control the Eastern Catholics. You know this too…it happened in the USA, Poland, Italy and probably a lot of other places.

It seems to me that the promises and assurances made to the Orthodox Catholic bishops considering submission to Rome were written on worthless paper.

What do you think?

Michael

 

[mardukm]

It is very interesting, but it doesn’t quite answer it.

What I am trying to comprehend, for instance, is the last century of Eastern Catholicism in the US based on the opening post. If I am understanding it correctly, which I might not be, it would mean that the pope acted properly in issuing *cum data fuerit *because it was within his scope of ordinary powers. Or that Archbishop Ireland acted appropriately because he was the ordinary of the area. I don’t agree if that is the case because I believe that they were stepping into the Eastern Church’s administrative functions which did not concern them and were therefore not within their jurisdiction.

 

[mardukm]

It is very interesting, but it doesn’t quite answer it.

What I am trying to comprehend, for instance, is the last century of Eastern Catholicism in the US based on the opening post. If I am understanding it correctly, which I might not be, it would mean that the pope acted properly in issuing *cum data fuerit *because it was within his scope of ordinary powers. Or that Archbishop Ireland acted appropriately because he was the ordinary of the area. I don’t agree if that is the case because I believe that they were stepping into the Eastern Church’s administrative functions which did not concern them and were therefore not within their jurisdiction.

Here is my sincere belief.

The Pope acted properly and rightly. It was in his Patriarchate, he respected the rights of local heirarchs (which were the Latin hierarchs) by not imposing anything until it was requested, and he made the prescription according to the needs of the local Church (there was a genuine question of scandal, especially since the Protestant churches all permitted married ministers). Further, in keeping with the evangelical law of charity, the Pope decreed that the prescription was only temporary.

On the other hand, Archbishop Ireland did NOT act rightly because it is obvious from all the documentation that his impetus was not concern for the possibility of scandal but because he was prejudiced against the Eastern Catholics. Further, he did NOT act properly because he violated the divine, evangelical and canonical law of charity.

That being said, I don’t believe Father Alexis Toth (eternal memory) acted properly when he led thousands of Catholics into schism. NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO BREAK COMMUNION ON AN ISSUE OF MERE DISCIPLINE. Have the Orthodox not learned the lessons of the incident of Pope St. Victor and the Easter controversy? I can greatly appreciate his love for his Tradition, but he had absolutely no right to break the communion of the Church. I find Eastern Orthodox praise of Fr. Toths actions while simulataneously criticizing Pope St. Victor as one of the more egregious displays of hypocrisy in their arguments against the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

I pray brother Aramis does not mind my responding to a post directed to him.

Sounds like the tyranny of the majority to me, how about you?

In terms of doctrine on faith and morals, the will of the majority has no bearing. But on a matter of discipline, the will of the majority is indeed the determining factor. I suppose one can accuse the majority of tyranny, but one can also accuse the minority of a lack of humility.

I think that after a few decades of this, the only candidates considered for bishop in the Byzantine-Slavonic Catholic churches of North America were pro-Mandatory Celibacy (some of the older ones still are) and favoring other Latinizations as well, but that is not how it started out. The first bishops were appointed by Rome, but from European candidates who knew the tradition, and the promises.

Were the European candidates Eastern Catholics? If so, it seems everything you write here supports brother Aramis’ assertions that the Latinizations were mostly internal.

Around the world we can find examples of predominately Roman Catholic Conferences of Bishops petitioning Rome to somehow restrain and control the Eastern Catholics. You know this too…it happened in the USA, Poland, Italy and probably a lot of other places.

Everything seems to be getting better in the United States regarding celibacy (though other innovations might be introduced, from an Eastern perspective).

I’m not aware of the situation in Poland. Can you tell me more?

I recall the Italian conference made a fuss. What was the result of that?

It seems to me that the promises and assurances made to the Orthodox Catholic bishops considering submission to Rome were written on worthless paper.

All the Popes in the past century have encouraged the Eastern Catholic Churches, so don’t blame the Pope. It is partly a matter of the Eastern Catholic hierarchs asserting themselves, as a Pope in the early 20th century told an Eastern Catholic hierarch. I forget the names, but the Eastern hierarch asked the Pope about a situation, and the Pope responded, “exercise your rights.”

In any case, I sense part of the reason Eastern Orthodox don’t appreciate the situation of Catholics is because of its inherent jurisdictionalism. Eastern Orthodox seem more concerned with jurisdiction rather unity in that regard. Though jurisdictionalism exists in the Catholic Churches, it is very muffled and nowhere near as divisive as in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is also the ecclesiology of the EO that, to me, presents a problem. If there is a group of people that disagree with something, EO ecclesiology, which permits lay persons to rebel against their bishops, encourages such rebellious behavior, even if it is only a matter of discipline. I have found that there is more humility and respect for the hierarchy in the Catholic Church (and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, for that matter) in this regard, the proper attitude enjoined by the Church of the Ecumenical Councils.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I find Eastern Orthodox praise of Fr. Toths actions while simulataneously criticizing Pope St. Victor as one of the more egregious displays of hypocrisy in their arguments against the Catholic Church.

1. Do you know that Fr Alexis Toth was canonised in 1994. He is now Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre.
2. Do you know that in accusing the Orthodox of hypocrisy in relation to Archbishop Victor of Rome you bring the same accusation against the many Saints who were associated with the letter from the Bishops of the Near East, criticising and rebuking Victor?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO BREAK COMMUNION ON AN ISSUE OF MERE DISCIPLINE.

And the reasons enumerated by Cardinal Humbert in the papal Bull which broke communion with Constantinople and eventually all the Catholic Churches of the East?

 

[Aramis]

I don’t follow this.

From within what…the Eastern churches themselves…or within the United States of America?

Michael

From within the eastern churches.

Priestly celibacy was imposed from the west, Rome specifically, but a lot of the others were imposed by eastern clerics upon the eastern faithful, and not all were opposed, either, by the faithful.

 

[mardukm]

1. Do you know that Fr Alexis Toth was canonised in 1994. He is now Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre.

Didn’t I add “eternal memory” when I mentioned his name? In any case, saints are not impeccable, are they?

2. Do you know that in accusing the Orthodox of hypocrisy in relation to Archbishop Victor of Rome you bring the same accusation against the many Saints who were associated with the letter from the Bishops of the Near East, criticising and rebuking Victor?

I seriously doubt that, Those same saints would have rebuked Fr, Alexis Toth for breaking communion on an issue of discipline, as they had Pope St. Victor.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And the reasons enumerated by Cardinal Humbert in the papal Bull which broke communion with Constantinople and eventually all the Catholic Churches of the East?

I don’t know. He was not authorized to do that by the Pope (the Pope was already dead!). Cardinal Humbert was reacting to accusations by the Patrirach Cerularius. Both the Cardinal and the Patriarch were guilty of making mere discipline a basis for schism.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

Here is my sincere belief.

The Pope acted properly and rightly. It was in his Patriarchate, he respected the rights of local heirarchs (which were the Latin hierarchs) by not imposing anything until it was requested, and he made the prescription according to the needs of the local Church (there was a genuine question of scandal, especially since the Protestant churches all permitted married ministers). Further, in keeping with the evangelical law of charity, the Pope decreed that the prescription was only temporary.

I don’t understand how keeping one’s word, preserving tradition, and acting with charity can be seen as scandalous. An explanation of history would dispel any appearance of scandal. How is it OK to break one’s word because some ignorant by-stander not directly affected might think you didn’t act properly? If we all acted under those provisions, we couldn’t act at all!

It is my opinion that doing the right thing and keeping one’s word, so long as it is not an objective sin, is more important than doing the wrong thing and breaking an oath but coming out looking good to casual observers.

What an opportunity there was for education and respect and instead a group of people’s rights were limited for no reason other than to not make the ignorant majority jealous. And the fruit was thousands of people in the east being scandalized and justifiably angered, disappointed, and losing their trust in Rome. I can’t say I think it was a wise choice or within his jurisdiction. I believe Pope Benedict should do some fancy footwork like he did with the Moto Proprio and say that the venerable traditions of the east were never forbidden with cum data feurit and to effectively recall it, officially recognizing that the authority rests with the heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches to make such decisions.