Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

This wasn’t a minor t that St. Meletius was trouble with, it was the Nicene Creed.

Thanks for the excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia. But it was not needed, really. I already stated in post#339 what my intention for mentioning the Meletian controversy was:

mardukm:

This thread is specifically about small “t” traditions. Only insofar as St. Basil preserved insitutional communion, despite a seeming misunderstanding, it is relevant to this thread. Certainly, if St. Basil could see through the misunderstandings of a big “T” Tradition, people by no means have a basis for breaking unity based on small “t” traditions.

 

[mardukm]

mardukm, my problem with this discussion is that if the pope outlaws married priests in the eastern Catholic churches how is it possible that the western world will ever become accustomed to eastern Christians having married priests as you said the hope was? They would not become accustomed to it because they would never actually see a married priest.

The problem with this perception, brother, is that the Pope never outlawed married priests. As constantly stated, the prescription was a TEMPORARY measure. The prescription did not survive beyond 1949. And it was up to Eastern/Oriental Catholics to thenceforth reclaim their Traditions.

One of my problems with universal jurisdiction is that it is the humble bishops that tend to submit to the overriding rule of the pope while the desenters rebel and get their way.

I can see where you are coming from. The danger seems apparent, but it is only apparent. Personally, I don’t let my faith dwell on possibilities. I focus on today, as Jesus himself exhorts us. The Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches are becoming more visible to the Church in the United States. And thank God for that.

You have the eastern bishops submitting to Rome and having their tradition destroyed while western bishops rebel and destroy the tradition of the west. What good does universal jurisdiction do? As far as I see it only aids the discenters in their discent.

I don’t see this event as the eastern bishops submitting to Rome. I see that they have a genuine concern for the entire Church, not just their own local Church, and have the grace to see that the Pope’s TEMPORARY prescription was wise. So what the Eastern bishops were really submitting to was the welfare of the Church, which the Pope’s solicitude reflects.

I am not aware that the western bishops are rebelling. In what way do you suppose this is happening. There are probably singular parishes that have broken the canons on liturgy, but I am not aware of any bishop who has actually supported such desecrations. Perhaps Father Ambrose or someone will chime in to give an example. But unless you, Fr. Ambrose, or anyone else can give at least three bishops who explicitly violate the canons on the liturgy, your comment of “western bishops rebelling” seems more sensationalist than anything else, don’t you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

To speak with honesty, I’ve never heard the claim that the worry of Ireland or anyone else was the possibility (noteossibility) of scandal with married clergy. They didn’t like iconstasis, they didn’t like DL in a language not Latin, etc. In short, they didn’t like anything not Latin in the fullest sense of the word.

In other words, this “accomodation unto extinction” knew no bounds.

Again, in the exchange between Ireland and St. Alexis, it was that St. Alexis was widowed (his son also had died, but he wasn’t brought up. I don’t think it mattered).

Now someone, I’m not sure if you did, stated that the Protestants were scandalized by the Latin celibacy. Well, if so why was no concern for the weak conscience of the Protestants?

No. “There are those whom you have warned us about, St. Paul, who have departed from the Truth and are speaking lies in hypocrisy having their own conscience seared with a hot iron forbidding to marry, even marriage sanctified by the word of God and prayer, and who say we have no right to take along a believing wife, and cannot remain in the state when God called us.”

The uniates had married clergy. They had to fight for it, and its deprication was one thing they had to endure, in places where they were the majority. As a tiny minority in a sea of Latins they were told that their faith wasn’t really correct. How were they to take that?

Many conceded that the Orthodox had been right all along, and acted accordingly.

Over a century, and as I understand it now it’s still iffy and on a case by case basis. Someone posted a while ago on the situation of the Maronites. Whose weak conscience are we worried about now in that one?

cont…

 

[mardukm]

No, since it is not a theory but a practice. Several Latin rite parishes exist in Antioch, Jerusalem ONLY has a Latin patriarchate, and in Alexandria and Constinople Latin parishes also operate. I’ve been to numerous ones in all four patriarchates.

Are these Latin rite parishes under the omophorion of the local Easter.Oriental Patriarch, or do they have their own Patriarch?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I assume Mardukm (I don’t know if I have seen you state it) that you are in the US or Australia. In Egypt, and for that matter all of Africa, there are no jurisdictional problems among the Orthodox, except solving the Chalcedon issue.

I am not talking about between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, but within Eastern Orthodoxy itself.

The Orthodox do see multiple patriarchates in Antioch and Alexandria, all under Rome. Jerusalem alone has one patriarch, a Latin one.

I don’t think you’ll find these Patriarchates making a fuss or squabbling about jurisdiction like the Eastern Orthodox do. Our hierarchs are humble like that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

When he has less chance of getting away with it.

I’m glad you admit there are safeguards against the Pope exercising his prerogatives wrongly.

I hope this admission informs and pervades any other posts you make regarding papal prerogatives.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And Galatians 2. This was a time when “Peter” had to be rebuked to his face.

Did Sts. Peter and Paul break communion?

To speak with honesty, I’ve never heard the claim that the worry of Ireland or anyone else was the possibility (noteossibility) of scandal with married clergy. They didn’t like iconstasis, they didn’t like DL in a language not Latin, etc. In short, they didn’t like anything not Latin in the fullest sense of the word.

In other words, this “accomodation unto extinction” knew no bounds.

Did I ever state that Abp Ireland’s worry was the possibility of scandal. I don’t think anyone else has suggested it either.

BTW, in this forum, you are expected to maintain the titles of clerics, even if you disagree with them. It would be proper for you to write about Abp Ireland with his title, not as Ireland. The Moderator has insisted on this one or two times before, with the threat of excommuncation.

Now someone, I’m not sure if you did, stated that the Protestants were scandalized by the Latin celibacy. Well, if so why was no concern for the weak conscience of the Protestants?

No one stated this.

No. “There are those whom you have warned us about, St. Paul, who have departed from the Truth and are speaking lies in hypocrisy having their own conscience seared with a hot iron forbidding to marry, even marriage sanctified by the word of God and prayer, and who say we have no right to take along a believing wife, and cannot remain in the state when God called us.”

Really? I always assumed that the exhortation against those who forbid marriage was directed at the Valentinians who forbade marriage ALTOGETHER. I didn’t know that EO use this as a rationale against the Latin Catholic celibate priesthood. That’s a shame. The EO have dropped a notch down in my respect for them.

And I didn’t realize that the Catholic Church forbade married priests from having relations with their wives (except before celebrating the Liturgy). Can you show me a document that prescribes this rule? I’m really shocked at the thought!

The uniates had married clergy. They had to fight for it, and its deprication was one thing they had to endure, in places where they were the majority. As a tiny minority in a sea of Latins they were told that their faith wasn’t really correct. How were they to take that?

Certainly, if the Easterns were being told their FAITH was wrong, I could see a cause for separating from Rome. Did Cum data fuerit accuse the Eastern Catholics of believing incorrectly? If not, this statement seems rather sensationalistic of you (not typical of you at all). You seem to be confusing small “t” tradition with big “T” Tradition?

Over a century, and as I understand it now it’s still iffy and on a case by case basis. Someone posted a while ago on the situation of the Maronites. Whose weak conscience are we worried about now in that one?

You understand wrongly about it being a “case by case” basis. Nothing is preventing the married priesthood to exist in North America at this time, except the will of the Eastern/Oriental hierarchs to have them or not. The situation with the Maronites is very unique and cannot be used to generalize as you have. We don’t have all the information on the matter, and what we have is third-hand (by brother Yeshua’s own admission). I think we should hold off making any judgmental comments on THAT situation. Agreed?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Marrige is a big T. Hence the rational given for the elaborate annullment scheme of the Latin church.

Methinks you are confusing your issues here, if you think this statement has any relevance.

Celibate clergy was one of the things Humbert demanded when he came into OUR Cathedral in OUR Patriarchal See and excommuciated US when WE kept to OUR tradition and discipline, which was that of the Apostles and Fathers, and of course St. Peter himself.

It is the Latin’s who couldn’t keep their small t’s to themselves, and made this a big T, as in Trouble, Test, and Trample.

And Cerularius maligned the celibate clergy of the West. This is a hypocritical argument, don’t you think.

And the inundation of Latinization? A few samll t’s here, a few small t’s there, and soon a critical mass and the realization that there was no Eastern Rites to speak of.

Are there any Eastern/Oriental Churches around today? Are we on the road to recovering our ancient Traditions while remaining in communion with the bishop of Rome? If so, I can’t see any merit to this statement.

According to the terms of union (the whole I idea of which I still can’t wrap myself around.

The terms of union were not initiated by the Latins, but by the Easterns

We have no terms of union but the Creed and councils).

Methinks you have a very selective understanding of our common history. Heretics and schismatics, upon returning to the unity of the Catholic Church ALWAYS required a set of terms/conditions.

promises were made for obedience and submission. The pope wasn’t delivering (even back in Austro-Hungary).

Can you please explain what it was the POPE was not delivering? Are you certain it was the POPE who was the cause and not a local latinizing, anti-Eastern hierarch?

Ireland’s acts, which he was free to pursue and which became enshrined in the cum data fuerit set back the uniates how far?

Once again, you need to mention Abp Ireland with his title.

In the name of weak consciences they were supposed to accept extinction?

I was not aware there were no more Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches in North America.

Did he? Did the pope of Rome think so?

If the Pope of Rome knew his motives (i.e. his prejudice), maybe the Pope would not have made that motu proprio. But regardless of Abp Ireland’s motives, the Pope displayed a genuine concern for the local Church, and did NOT do it out of a desire to make the Eastern Church extinct , and indicated it was only a TEMPORARY prescription.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The pope signed a document promising that certain things were respected. and then they weren’t.

Christ told them as it is, and that they could take it or leave it. He mades promises and kept them.

The pope did not.

Christ was talking about matters of Faith, so your point is not relevant.

The reason I mentioned John 6 was to indicate that you can’t blame the Pope for Fr. Toth leaving. If Fr. Toth could not see that a small “t” Tradition was not worth breaking communion over, then that was his deficiency (Saints are not impeccalbe after all, correct?)

You are aware of course that DESPITE the promise of every bishop to preserve the laws of the Church, it is a fact that in the past, the canons themselves were “violated” by the Church because of the exigencies of the times. For instance, the law against translation of bishops was sometimes “violated” when there was a genuine need for a bishop in a particular area. Let me fail not to mention the principle of oikoinomia in the Eastern/Oriental Churches which “violates” various laws of the Church in extenuating circumstances. Goodness - even the doctrinal law of the necessity of baptism is permitted to be “violated” in extenuating circumstances. There’s no way you can tell me that just for sake of small “t” tradition, the Pope was somehow wrong in demonstrating solicitude for a local Church to meet an extenuating circumstance (proof that it was extenuating is the fact that the prescription was only TEMPORARY).

In any case, I guess there was debate at one time whether the traditions spoken of in the treaty covered the married priesthood, or if it referred only to Liturgical celebrations. Were you aware of that or heard about it, at least?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

As constantly stated, the prescription was a TEMPORARY measure. The prescription did not survive beyond 1949. And it was up to Eastern/Oriental Catholics to thenceforth reclaim their Traditions.

1. Can you please show me where it says it is a temporary measure? I haven’t seen that before and you’ve said it enough to interest me.
2. Can you tell me why you believe it was revoked in 1949? All of the clergy I’ve spoken with are under the impression that it is still in effect and ordinations of married men are hesitatingly and cautiously done in defiance of it.
3. I don’t understand why they should have to reclaim something which was their inherent right. I still don’t follow how it is scandalous to keep one’s word or to preserve the ancient and venerable traditions of a Church over giving in to the demands of those promoting a heresy.

 

[jimmy]

If the Pope stated that a married priesthood was WRONG in his motu proprio, then I will accept your statement. Otherwise, your statement is merely a sensationalist appeal to emotion, don’t you think?

I didn’t say the eastern Churches should give up their tradition, but I do maintain that tradition must take a back seat when people might be scandalized by it.

This statement demonstrates the parochial nature of Eastern Orthodoxy. Statements such as this demonstrate that Eastern Orthodoxy does not deserve the title “Catholic.” You (and others) keep making this distinction between “eastern” and “western,” If you were truly Catholic, you would be concerned if the Western Church is scandalized. The fact of the matter is, in the minds of the Protestant world, the celibate priesthood was the most obvious hallmark of the Catholic Church. It was part of the identity of Western Catholicism. BUT A MARRIED PRIESTHOOD, ON THE OTHER HAND, DOES NOT DEFINE EASTERN OR ORIENTAL CATHOLICISM, because our priests cannot marry, as well. So don’t give me this false rationale that an Eastern or Oriental Catholic would have been scandalized to see an unmarried priest serving its churches. That’s just so much hogwash!!. Fr. Toth should have informed his parishioners that the papal prescription was only temporary, not at all intended to malign the Eastern Tradition, for that was indeed the case.

How dare you suggest that the West should give up its tradition! Such hypocrisy! The Pope, for a GOOD reason, out of genuine concern for a local church, made a TEMPORARY prescription against a married priesthood in North America (proven by the fact that even now there are married priests in the Latin Rite), and now your response is for the West to simply give up its tradition altogether, JUST because the “eastern tradition is the ancient tradition?” Forgive me, but you will find no sympathy from this Oriental Christian for such anti-Western attitudes.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I don’t think. What does the pope saying married priests is wrong have to do with what I said? He still scandalized the eastern Catholics by saying that they could not have married priests.

That’s great that you are concerned that the western church is scandalized but they are not worried that the eastern church is scandalized. You seem not to care if the eastern churches just disapear.

Fon’t give me this rationale that a western priest would be scandalized. If he looks throughout history he will see that the saints allowed priests to be married. Should the saints scandalize the western priest? NO, AND NEITHER SHOULD THE MARRIED EASTERN PRIEST.

You find it a horrendous idea that I suggest that the west give up their tradition? WHY DO YOU HATE THE EASTERN CHURCHES? You suggest that it was justifiable for them to give up their traditions, which stretch back to the beginning of Christianity, but when I suggest that it would have been better for the west to give up its tradition which stretches back to the 11th centuty you get offended?

Your reference to the married priests in the Latin rite defeats your whole arguement. THe fact that they have married priests shows that the western priesthood is not defined by celibacy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Woodstock,

1. Can you please show me where it says it is a temporary measure? I haven’t seen that before and you’ve said it enough to interest me.
2. Can you tell me why you believe it was revoked in 1949? All of the clergy I’ve spoken with are under the impression that it is still in effect and ordinations of married men are hesitatingly and cautiously done in defiance of it.

You might find this interesting:
byzantines.net/epiphany/ordination.htm
Let me know what you think.

“Exercise your rights!” as a past Pope has exhorted (I really wish brother Irish Melkite would show up to let us know which Pope said that to which Eastern Patriarch)

1. I don’t understand why they should have to reclaim something which was their inherent right.

The right was never lost. The Eastern bishops, for the good of the ENTIRE Church, not just their own, decided to forego the use of these “rights” St. Paul speaks of this rather poignantly in I Corinthians 9. He claims many rights, but he chooses to not use them in order to promote the Gospel. The fact is, at a time when one of the distinguishing factors of Catholicism to the Protestant world was the celibate priesthood, the Eastern hierarchy, I believe, wisely did not make use of their right in order to aid the cause of Catholicism in the United States AT THE TIME.

I still don’t follow how it is scandalous to keep one’s word or to preserve the ancient and venerable traditions of a Church over giving in to the demands of those promoting a heresy.

I don’t really understand your question. Can you explain? Are you saying the Latin Church was promoting heresy by insisting on a temporary ban on married priesthood?

In any case, I don’t think it is scandalous to break a law, treaty or tradition which would otherwise cause scandal or spiritual harm, would you agree?

But please don’t get me wrong. I am not saying the Latin Church hierarchs (NOT including the Pope) are correct or morally right in today’s day and age when they still insist on a ban of married clergy in traditionally Latin lands. More so, I believe it is utterly hypocritical of the Latin Church, especially when they accept married priests from the Protestant Churches!!!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, I don’t think. What does the pope saying married priests is wrong have to do with what I said? He still scandalized the eastern Catholics by saying that they could not have married priests.

That’s great that you are concerned that the western church is scandalized but they are not worried that the eastern church is scandalized. You seem not to care if the eastern churches just disapear.

Fon’t give me this rationale that a western priest would be scandalized. If he looks throughout history he will see that the saints allowed priests to be married. Should the saints scandalize the western priest? NO, AND NEITHER SHOULD THE MARRIED EASTERN PRIEST.

You find it a horrendous idea that I suggest that the west give up their tradition? WHY DO YOU HATE THE EASTERN CHURCHES? You suggest that it was justifiable for them to give up their traditions, which stretch back to the beginning of Christianity, but when I suggest that it would have been better for the west to give up its tradition which stretches back to the 11th centuty you get offended?

Your reference to the married priests in the Latin rite defeats your whole arguement. THe fact that they have married priests shows that the western priesthood is not defined by celibacy.

Brother, please forgive me if I have given the impression that I do not care about the Eastern Churches. Once again, please forgive me.

Part of my zeal is informed by the fact that this was the past. The situation of the Eastern Catholics is getting better (at least in the United States). Your last sentence particularly proves my point. I am talking about the PAST. Though they have married Latin rite priests now, they did not a hundred years ago. I would not apply anything I have stated to the Church TODAY. I deplore the actions of the Polish, Italian, and Australian bishops (I did some reading) in trying to restrict the Eastern Catholic clergy in these traditionally Latin lands. I really hope the Pope speaks up for his Eastern/Oriental children. But I doubt it, given that he has divested himself of the title Patriarch of the West. Though it has its positive aspects in that it will allow Eastern/Oriental Patriarchs to have direct control of their flock in the diaspora, I have a foreboding feeling that the situation may result in the same bitter jursidictionalism that exists among the Eastern Orthodox.

But then, that jurisdictionalism just might cause the EO to feel right at home in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Methinks you are confusing your issues here, if you think this statement has any relevance.

No. Your church considers Holy Orders a sacrament. It considers marriage a sacrament. Either an Eastern pirest was expected to give up his vocation or put away or hide his wife.

And Cerularius maligned the celibate clergy of the West. This is a hypocritical argument, don’t you think.

I’d love to see the posting exchange between Cerularius and Humbert.

Not my faovrite choice, but on the issue Cerularius himself was celibate, and had celibate clergy. The issue was the attitude that Humbert and others before him had expressed on the incompatibility of the married state and serving at the altar.

Are there any Eastern/Oriental Churches around today? Are we on the road to recovering our ancient Traditions while remaining in communion with the bishop of Rome? If so, I can’t see any merit to this statement.

This is the argument I hear from Muslims that the continued existence of Christians in the Islamic world proves how tolerant Islam is. I’ve heard the EP still being in Constantinople as proof of this. Need I say more?

The terms of union were not initiated by the Latins, but by the Easterns

As posted elsewhere, these Easterners were being ground down by the Western Poles, Germans, Hungarians and Austrians.

Methinks you have a very selective understanding of our common history. Heretics and schismatics, upon returning to the unity of the Catholic Church ALWAYS required a set of terms/conditions.

I’ve seen several such terms in the Ecumenical councils: the Catholic church always set them, as the exercise of economy.

Can you please explain what it was the POPE was not delivering? Are you certain it was the POPE who was the cause and not a local latinizing, anti-Eastern hierarch?

And the difference would be?

Once again, you need to mention Abp Ireland with his title.

Economy of space, I wasn’t bothered by the absence of EP in front of Cerularius.

I was not aware there were no more Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches in North America.

In spite of, not because of, Rome.

If the Pope of Rome knew his motives (i.e. his prejudice), maybe the Pope would not have made that motu proprio. But regardless of Abp Ireland’s motives, the Pope displayed a genuine concern for the local Church, and did NOT do it out of a desire to make the Eastern Church extinct , and indicated it was only a TEMPORARY prescription.

The uniates were less local? The returnees to Orthodoxy might have made him rethink things, or come up with a better solution. Or just a solution.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr. Toth should have informed his parishioners that the papal prescription was only temporary,

Is this fact or myth-making, Mardukm?

Please quote the papal document which stipulates that the unmarried clergy demanded of the Eastern Rite Catholics in the States was only temporary.

 

[jimmy]

Brother, please forgive me if I have given the impression that I do not care about the Eastern Churches. Once again, please forgive me.

Part of my zeal is informed by the fact that this was the past. The situation of the Eastern Catholics is getting better (at least in the United States). Your last sentence particularly proves my point. I am talking about the PAST. Though they have married Latin rite priests now, they did not a hundred years ago. I would not apply anything I have stated to the Church TODAY. I deplore the actions of the Polish, Italian, and Australian bishops (I did some reading) in trying to restrict the Eastern Catholic clergy in these traditionally Latin lands. I really hope the Pope speaks up for his Eastern/Oriental children. But I doubt it, given that he has divested himself of the title Patriarch of the West. Though it has its positive aspects in that it will allow Eastern/Oriental Patriarchs to have direct control of their flock in the diaspora, I have a foreboding feeling that the situation may result in the same bitter jursidictionalism that exists among the Eastern Orthodox.

But then, that jurisdictionalism just might cause the EO to feel right at home in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem is that they are not recovering their tradition. Many maronites now think that celibate priesthood is a part of their tradition. They don’t want to go back to their tradition. And since pope John Paul II required that all the maronite bishops must agree in order to have a married priesthood, this is a problem for the whole of the maronite church in the west.

 

[Montalban]

Is this fact or myth-making, Mardukm?

Please quote the papal document which stipulates that the unmarried clergy demanded of the Eastern Rite Catholics in the States was only temporary.

Ages ago I heard on the radio a Catholic priest saying that they needed to have celibacy in the priesthood to devote themselves better to their parish - implying that non-celibate priests don’t do this as well as they do - and thus condemning eastern Catholic parishoners to priests who aren’t as capable of serving them

 

[Hesychios]

You understand wrongly about it being a “case by case” basis. Nothing is preventing the married priesthood to exist in North America at this time, except the will of the Eastern/Oriental hierarchs to have them or not.

Just a slight correction, and elaboration, here.

The Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh must still apply to Rome for permission to ordain each and every candidate. It has no right to make that decision unilaterally. Thus…a “cases by case” basis. Saint Alexis was a Carpatho-Rus, and thus this still affects the church tradition he belonged to.

Metropolitan +Judson (Memory Eternal!) had wished to have the right to ordain married deacons (after Vat II married deacons we restored in the Latin church, and consequently also in the Ruthenian church). This might have looked like a “back door” way of reintroducing a married clergy in a general way systemwide (indeed, it may have been), this change to their Particular Law was rejected by Rome.

The Melkites and Ukrainians have occasionally disregarded Cum Data Fuerit since Vatican Council II. Never receiving specific approval from Rome to do so. They have had the benefit of common links to a “home territory” in which to carry out the ordinations. Romes reaction during the Pontificate of John Paul II was to (at first) question the licity but not actually to interfere, and not expressing approval. The practice of ordaining in the old countries and returning odained married men to North America continued on a small scale until they boldly asserted their rights to ordain locally in North America. It is my understanding that Rome had continued to assert Cum Data Fuerit was in force up until this point, but never formally announced it’s death after these ordinations.

Ruthenians, on the other hand, are a category of churches fragmented by political bounds and directly dependent upon the bishop of Rome and his curia in each and every jurisdiction, both in the diaspora and in their European land of origin. The opportunity to send candidates overseas to another branch of their own church did not (and does not) exist. The selection process for Ruthenian bishops is also different because of this. Rome has been very carefully managing the appointments to the episcopacy in the Ruthenian complex of church parts, so that today the bishops of North America are only beginning to look at returning to the tradition of married parish clergy. Nevertheless the special rule stands: each and every candidate must receive unique approval from Rome. Of the four Ruthenian bishops in North America, only one has pressed this right AFAIK. Bishop +John Kudrick appears to stand more in the tradition of Metropolitan +Judson Procyk. The older bishops seem to have more in common with Archbishop +Nicholas Elko.

 

[Woodstock]

Dear brother Woodstock,

You might find this interesting:
byzantines.net/epiphany/ordination.htm
Let me know what you think.

Thanks! I’ll read it today.

The right was never lost. The Eastern bishops, for the good of the ENTIRE Church, not just their own, decided to forego the use of these “rights”

I don’t think the Eastern bishops *decided *much of anything. They were put in a position of losing all which distinguished them as unique by being told to latinize the Liturgy, the church architecture, the theology, the spirituality, and the customs of their Church–many of which they cared so deeply about that they would only enter in union with Rome if those things were upheld–or face their churches, liturgy, and priests being taken away from them by the American bishops so they would have no choice but to assimilate. That isn’t much of a choice. It also doesn’t leave much of a choice for the future to bounce back from it.

St. Paul speaks of this rather poignantly in I Corinthians 9. He claims many rights, but he chooses to not use them in order to promote the Gospel. The fact is, at a time when one of the distinguishing factors of Catholicism to the Protestant world was the celibate priesthood, the Eastern hierarchy, I believe, wisely did not make use of their right in order to aid the cause of Catholicism in the United States AT THE TIME.

Saint Paul does not deny that they were his rights to demand which he willingly would forego. He emphasized yet again that he retained the rights and did not exercise them. This is nothing like the position the Eastern Churches were put in. They did not willingly forego these rights, but had them forcefully taken from them.

The face of Catholicism in America at the time was Irish. Most of us know that the Irish Catholics faced great persecution in the US. Signs hung on shop windows saying, “Irish need not apply!” The Irish-American bishops were trying to fit in and be accepted, so they were telling everyone east and west to minimize and mainstream as much as possible to be seen as Americans first and Catholics second. The ethnic traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches did not fit into their plans, so they forced the heresy of Americanism on them as well.

How do we explain colonial Maryland in all of this? It was a Catholic colony and was one of the most prosperous. It was open and tolerant of other faiths within its borders, unlike many other American colonies at the time. It might be that the Protestants wouldn’t have maintained their unfavorable views of Catholicism if they had seen the great diversity and universality of it instead of being presented with only one rigid practice of the faith. Instead of being scandalized, they might likely have been evangelized.

I don’t really understand your question. Can you explain? Are you saying the Latin Church was promoting heresy by insisting on a temporary ban on married priesthood?

The heresy I am referring to is Americanism, which was promoted by errant American bishops and condemned by the Vatican. I am saying that heresy was a main instigation for the American bishops to act as they did against the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that Rome broke its written and signed promise in order to give in to the desires of those promoting a heresy.

In any case, I don’t think it is scandalous to break a law, treaty or tradition which would otherwise cause scandal or spiritual harm, would you agree?

I think it is scandalous to take away the rights of another because an unaffected third party might not like it. I believe it causes far more spiritual harm to remove someone’s rights forcefully than the broad and vague topic of scandal could possibly merit. I think it was wrong for Rome to impose itself on the Eastern Churches in an area they had agreed to not have any jurisdiction in deciding. So no, I wouldn’t agree to that statement.

But please don’t get me wrong. I am not saying the Latin Church hierarchs (NOT including the Pope) are correct or morally right in today’s day and age when they still insist on a ban of married clergy in traditionally Latin lands.

Why not including the pope? He can make mistakes. If a man makes a mistake, it affects the well-being of his family and relations, so a score or two of people. If a priest makes a mistake, hundreds of people are affected. If a bishop, thousands. If a pope, millions. We all can recite off terrible errors of previous popes. Why do you exclude this as being something he could have done wrong in the first place?

Instead of saying it was a mistake, you seem to put the onus of guilt on the people whose rights were removed instead of on the people who removed them. I don’t understand that. Hopefully the article you linked will help.

 

[Aramis]

Just a slight correction, and elaboration, here.

The Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh must still apply to Rome for permission to ordain each and every candidate. It has no right to make that decision unilaterally. Thus…a “cases by case” basis. Saint Alexis was a Carpatho-Rus, and thus this still affects the church tradition he belonged to.

Metropolitan +Judson (Memory Eternal!) had wished to have the right to ordain married deacons (after Vat II married deacons we restored in the Latin church, and consequently also in the Ruthenian church). This might have looked like a “back door” way of reintroducing a married clergy in a general way systemwide (indeed, it may have been), this change to their Particular Law was rejected by Rome.

The Melkites and Ukrainians have occasionally disregarded Cum Data Fuerit since Vatican Council II. Never receiving specific approval from Rome to do so. They have had the benefit of common links to a “home territory” in which to carry out the ordinations. Romes reaction during the Pontificate of John Paul II was to (at first) question the licity but not actually to interfere, and not expressing approval. The practice of ordaining in the old countries and returning odained married men to North America continued on a small scale until they boldly asserted their rights to ordain locally in North America. It is my understanding that Rome had continued to assert Cum Data Fuerit was in force up until this point, but never formally announced it’s death after these ordinations.

Ruthenians, on the other hand, are a category of churches fragmented by political bounds and directly dependent upon the bishop of Rome and his curia in each and every jurisdiction, both in the diaspora and in their European land of origin. The opportunity to send candidates overseas to another branch of their own church did not (and does not) exist. The selection process for Ruthenian bishops is also different because of this. Rome has been very carefully managing the appointments to the episcopacy in the Ruthenian complex of church parts, so that today the bishops of North America are only beginning to look at returning to the tradition of married parish clergy. Nevertheless the special rule stands: each and every candidate must receive unique approval from Rome. Of the four Ruthenian bishops in North America, only one has pressed this right AFAIK. Bishop +John Kudrick appears to stand more in the tradition of Metropolitan +Judson Procyk. The older bishops seem to have more in common with Archbishop +Nicholas Elko.

The right to ordain married deacons has been restored. It’s only the priests that require individual approval at the moment; the whole of the metropolia of Pittsburgh has married priests, not just Eparch +John. While I know not the name of the priest, I know Van Nuys has one grey-robed presbyter. (Also, one in monastic robes of Franciscan pattern.)

Retired Eparch +George of Van Nuys also supported the idea of married priests. Eparch +William is not hostile to it.

It is taking time, but the Ruthenian Church IS returning to their traditions. And permanent deacons, celibate or married, have been a part of that tradition.