Papal prerogatives

[Hesychios]

The right to ordain married deacons has been restored.

What I meant was, the right to ordain priests from the ranks of the married diaconate.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Michael

 

[Aramis]

What I meant was, the right to ordain priests from the ranks of the married diaconate.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Michael

Give it time, Michael.

Rome moves as fast as a lethargic snail most of the time.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

What about my post of how the Romans dealt with Pope Stephen VI? They dealt effectively with the safegaard of strangulation against Pope excersing his perrogatives wrongly.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Did Sts. Peter and Paul break communion?

No. St. Paul requested a council, St. James held it, St. Peter came to his senses. No problem.

While St. Alexis was a St. Paul the archbishop was no Peter, and I doubt Pius in Rome would act like St. James.

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

I’ve glanced through the posts and I think Woodstock has handled this question.

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.

No one stated this.

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.

The statement I have heard and seen NUMEROUS times, that God will not call a married man to the priesthood.

Again it’s not the celibacy, but the mandated part.

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!

St. Jerome makes the statement that all the Apostles lived celibate with their wives. A number of canons so decreed against the married clergy in the West, I’ll have to have more time to find and post.

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?

The justification that the West has made to sustain its small t on this has involved quite a few “T” Traditions.

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?

Woodstock, Hesychiast and I think Aramis have taken this up. I don’t I’ll add anything of merit now.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

I think I’ll stand right now on what Woodstock and Aramis have said (whom I think this personally involves. What the uniates do doesn’t involve me personally at all).

 

[mardukm]

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.

I was hoping you would keep to the topic of the celibacy issue. There was no papal decree to latinize the Liturgy. church architecture, etc. etc. etc. The topic of this thread regards the POPE and his relationship to the Eastern Churches with regards to their traditions. As far as I am aware, all latinization were forced by LOCAL latinizing hierarchs, as well as latinized Eastern hierarchs. So I don’t see any merit based on these particular arguments for breaking communion with the bishop of Rome. I can see it is a good appeal to emotion, though. It’s like when abortionists argue that all women’s rights will be threatened if the “right” to abortion is taken away.

The fact is, the bishops HAD a choice. They could easily have taken the road of Fr. Toth. But I they conscientiously made a choice that communion with the bishop of Rome was more important than preserving a small “t” tradition. I am not saying a “concession towards extinction.” But it was ONE small “t” tradition. It was NOT worth breaking the unity of the Church over it.

Now, the issue of the fear of extinction of identity is a valid fear, but THE POPE AT NO TIME PROPOSED SUCH EXTREME AND UNJUST MEASURES. SO WHY BREAK COMMUNION WITH HIM? The fact of the matter is, the Eastern hierarchs, with regards to other traditions, for the most part imposed it on themselves - I can imagine as a way to evangelize/attract people to their churches in the manner of St. Paul who was a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the Greeks, all for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel. I imagine that it got out of hand, and resulted in an actual loss of identity, percieved or actual.

I am puzzled about your last line above. Do you have hope that the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches will bounce back, or are you in a state of despair about it? I ask because another previous post from you indicated you had hope in the matter.

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.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. The question to me is whether one values a small “t” tradition over the unity of the Church. And I am insisting this on the basis of the single issue of married clergy, not on the extrapolated wholesale extinction of traditional identity.

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.

That’s possible, but extremely unlikely, if you’ve ever engaged a fundamentalist in debate, or have read any of the Anglican and Protestant polemics of the age. In any case, fundamentalists are just as caustic against the Orthodox as Catholics (even moreso, actually, from my experience).

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.

I believe this is a stretch. Americanism is otherwise known as jurisdictionalism. It has nothing to do the issue we are talking about. In fact, the maintenance of a celibate priesthood, if anything, was COUNTER-CULTURAL to the Protestant American experience. Catholicism was distinguishing itself even more by maintaining a celibate priesthood. The Pope was by no means permitting that heresy as far as our issue is concerned; in truth, that heresy has nothing to do with our discussion.

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

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.

Who is “the unaffected third party” of whom you speak? It certainly can’t be the Latin Catholics of the time.

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.

Once again, at no time will I ever agree that Rome imposed itself on the Eastern Churches in this particular incident. I am not willing to admit that the Eastern hierarchs were such cowards as to deny their traditions. What I wholeheartedly believe is that these holy hierarchs who had suffered so much were drawn by their own consciences - not by any legal obligation - to maintain unity with the bishop of Rome. Like I stated earlier, it is a matter of what is more important to an apostolic Christian - the preservation of a small “t” tradition (once again, I know you are tempted, but please don’t involve the idea of “concession unto extinction” here because we are only talking about ONE tradition - at most two), or the unity of the Church. Once again, I would like to propose the question - what lesson have we learned from the incident with Pope St. Victor and the Easter controversy?

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?

I exclude the Pope in relation to the topic we are speaking about. I don’t deny that there have been individual Popes in the late Middle Ages who failed in their obligations of charity and stewardship towards the Eastern Churches. But with regard to the issue we are discussing, I do not include the Pope as a purveyor of latinism.

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.

Forgive me if I have given that impression. I do not blame those who left for cherishing their traditions. However, I feel conscientiously obliged to criticize them for sundering the unity of the Church. I don’t find Fr. Toth’s action to be heroic at all. What I find heroic is the actions of all the Eastern Catholics who maintained unity. I pray ALL Eastern/Oriental Catholics in the United States are canonized. They have certainly borne EVERY fruit of the spirit in remaining united to the bishop of Rome. And that is certainly cause for canonization.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

I hate this distinction between little ‘t’ tradition and big ‘T’ tradition. It is a good way of saying most things in Christianity are changable. The big T tradition is turned into patristic proof texting because all they are good for is for a few proof texts that show a few statements we would affirm. By changing the little t traditions you change everything.

You speak like it is nothing for the eastern churches to decide one day to not have married priests.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

b~u~m~p

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

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]

b~u~m~p

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.

Somewhat on that point. mardukm mentioned that it expired or whatever in 1949. I don’t know how that jives with the fact that Maronites in the US still can’t have married priests.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

What I find heroic is the actions of all the Eastern Catholics who maintained unity.,
Marduk

The websites I have looked at say 100,000 plus Catholics left the Catholic Church over this dispute with Rome and were received into Orthodoxy. These Eastern Catholics in the States made the decision to remain united, brother with brother, and not to permit their tradition to be denigrated in the Roman Catholic effort to score points against American Protestants.

I actually have never heard and do not believe that fear of the Protestants was the reason the Vatican imposed celibacy on the Eastern clergy but it is a major point in Mardukm’s argument.

Is it known how many Eastern Catholics chose to stay with Rome?

 

[w_stewart]

The websites I have looked at say 100,000 plus Catholics left the Catholic Church over this dispute with Rome and were received into Orthodoxy. These Eastern Catholics in the States made the decision to remain united, brother with brother, and not to permit their tradition to be denigrated in the Roman Catholic effort to score points against American Protestants.

Father, could you provide links?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Father, could you provide links?

My two good links are Hesychios and Irish Melkite.

 

[w_stewart]

My two good links are Hesychios and Irish Melkite.

I mean on line documents, Father. Im asking for links not to argue but to learn, Father.

 

[Montalban]

I hate this distinction between little ‘t’ tradition and big ‘T’ tradition. It is a good way of saying most things in Christianity are changable. The big T tradition is turned into patristic proof texting because all they are good for is for a few proof texts that show a few statements we would affirm. By changing the little t traditions you change everything.

You speak like it is nothing for the eastern churches to decide one day to not have married priests.

Is this only in the USA - as an issue?

 

[jimmy]

Is this only in the USA - as an issue?

Are you talking about the eastern churches not having married priests? I am not sure whether the rest of the America’s have this issue.

 

[Woodstock]

Are you talking about the eastern churches not having married priests? I am not sure whether the rest of the America’s have this issue.

I believe cum data feurit and the ban on married priests was for the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK.

 

[anthony022071]

The answer to the first question is a standard orthodox Catholic position.

I have to disagree. What does he mean when he says that if doctrines coming from the pope are incompatible with the discipline of a particular church,that the clergy may remonstrate and not receive those regulations? If he means doctrines on faith and morals,no clergymen or local church can decide that those doctrines are not “compatible”.
The clergy may perhaps remonstrate to the pope over local disciplinary matters,but it is not for the clergy to decide for themselves whether he receives orders from the pope. As for doctrines on faith and morals,there should be no remonstrating with the pope.

As to the second question, the idea that a Council is above its head bishop is indeed irresponsible, an idea not contained in the Church of the first millenium. The orthodox, patristic, and biblical Catholic doctrine is that the head bishop is an indespensable member of the body of Catholic bishops. The body is not above the head, nor is the head above the body.

The head of the church is,by definition,above the body of the church. It is the head that must direct and discipline the body,not the other way around.

They are BOTH joined in ONE BODY organically AND DIVINELY for the proper functioning.of the entire body. Howver, I do not think the principle tenets of Gallicanism had heretofore been dogmatically repudiated for one to be able to assign the word “stupid” to that view. Gallicanism did not deny papal infallibility - it was only a question of HOW the infallibility was acquired.

As to the third question, it is actually partly correct. Dogmatically and canonically speaking, the decrees of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL are not binding without the approval of BOTH the head and the body.

An ecumenical council is one thing,the “whole church” is another.

Ultimately,it is the opinion of the pope that is the determining factor. It is the pope who decides if the decisions of a council are to be universally binding. Even if the “whole church” does not agree with a docrine of a pope,or if the majority of a council rejects a doctrine of a pope,it is still the pope who is in the right.

St. Maximos:

“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.”

St. Nicephorous:

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

In truth, the answer to the third question is also a matter of HOW the papl infallibility is acquired, not a matter of whether papal infallibility existed. In truth, the acts of the Popes in history have always been collegially enacted, so there was a legitimate question as to whether or not his infallibility was immediate or derived.

Papal infallibility is from the promise of Jesus Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Aramis]

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

Blessings

Jerusalem is essentially just a province (Archbishopric); the Patriarch (like all other Roman Patriarchs) has no archbishops under his omphor. It is accorded a patriarchal dignity, but is, in practical terms, just an Archdiocese.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

Hello

The answer to the first question is a standard orthodox Catholic position.

I have to disagree. What does he mean when he says that if doctrines coming from the pope are incompatible with the discipline of a particular church,that the clergy may remonstrate and not receive those regulations? If he means doctrines on faith and morals,no clergymen or local church can decide that those doctrines are not “compatible”.
The clergy may perhaps remonstrate to the pope over local disciplinary matters,but it is not for the clergy to decide for themselves whether he receives orders from the pope. As for doctrines on faith and morals,there should be no remonstrating with the pope.

Although there have been plenty of popes (Stephen VI being only an extreme example) in sore need of remonstrating.

As to the second question, the idea that a Council is above its head bishop is indeed irresponsible, an idea not contained in the Church of the first millenium. The orthodox, patristic, and biblical Catholic doctrine is that the head bishop is an indespensable member of the body of Catholic bishops. The body is not above the head, nor is the head above the body.

The head of the church is,by definition,above the body of the church. It is the head that must direct and discipline the body,not the other way around.

Honorius is glad to hear that.

They are BOTH joined in ONE BODY organically AND DIVINELY for the proper functioning.of the entire body. Howver, I do not think the principle tenets of Gallicanism had heretofore been dogmatically repudiated for one to be able to assign the word “stupid” to that view. Gallicanism did not deny papal infallibility - it was only a question of HOW the infallibility was acquired.

As to the third question, it is actually partly correct. Dogmatically and canonically speaking, the decrees of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL are not binding without the approval of BOTH the head and the body.

An ecumenical council is one thing,the “whole church” is another.

Ultimately,it is the opinion of the pope that is the determining factor. It is the pope who decides if the decisions of a council are to be universally binding. Even if the “whole church” does not agree with a docrine of a pope,or if the majority of a council rejects a doctrine of a pope,it is still the pope who is in the right.

which why the dogma of infallibility is wrong.

The Second, Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Coucils demonstrated that.