PRIMACY - Revisited

[Aramis]

Btw, Marduk, your explanations to Mickey on those other points were . I wonder if he has any responses. I have noticed lurking in other threads that when you and other Catholics answer his statements, he doesn’t really have a response, but only dismisses the Catholic answer without any reasons - he applies some particular adjective to the Catholic answers, but he never provides a reason to justify applying those adjectives.

I would probably agree with Peter Mogila that he is “invincibly ignorant.”

Btw, I don’t want to digress this thread, but can you explain really quickly what “invincibly ignorant” means? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

Invincible ignorance requires having been unable to hear the truth, not rejection of it. It’s a particular theological term that, unless there is brain damage, can’t be properly applied to one who’s been shown the truth repeatedly.

Willfully ignorant, perhaps, but not invincibly.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

The article to which you linked is fantastic. I am not sure if you are familiar with the distinctions between the Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine views that are regularly discussed here on CAF. Probably 95% of the Catholics (Latin, Eastern and Oriental) who regularly post here on the Eastern Catholicism Forum adhere to the High Petrine view, not the Absolutist Petrine view (you may have even noticed, if you have lurked here long enough, the debates - even heated ones - that have ensued between Latin Catholics of the Absolutist Petrine camp, and those Catholics who hold the High Petrine view). I note with great satisfaction the High Petrine ideal that the article proposes. If you agree with the position from that article, you will find a good home here in the Eastern Catholicism Forum of CAF, and hopefully will never experience the problems in the past that you have mentioned. Not only Eastern, Oriental and many Latin Catholics, but there are also at least 3 other EO members here who agree with the High Petrine ideal.

I wanted to add that here in CAF, especially the Eastern Catholicism Forum, the goal is not to proselytize each other, but to understand each other. I can see that you share the same goal - another reason why you will find a good home here as far as internet discussions are concerned.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

I wanted to add that here in CAF, especially the Eastern Catholicism Forum, the goal is not to proselytize each other, but to understand each other. I can see that you share the same goal - another reason why you will find a good home here as far as internet discussions are concerned.

OOPS! I meant “Peter.” 3 letters in common. No, I’m not going senile, I’m not going senile, I’m not going senile…

Blessings

 

[Dan-Man916]

Invincible ignorance means that you don’t even know that you don’t know something, and you have no way of overcoming the fact that you don’t know.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Peter,

I too was thoroughly impressed with the article you linked to. It’s good to know that there are Orthodox Christians out there who are seriously contemplating the possibilities inherent in Rome’s offer of putting the “jurisdictional” expression/model of papal primacy on the table… of course, that primacy must be a substantive, active, practical reality; yet even so, all legal language used in theological matters if by definition purely analogical.

I’m not as educated on this matter as some other individuals, so I’ll refrain from leaving comments as specific as Marduk’s. In other words, I don’t know exactly how much I agree or disagree with every little thing in the article. But the general impression I got was one of honesty, historical credibility, and a true challenge on the part of the Orthodox Church for us Catholics to embrace a deeply transformative ecclesiological ressourcement!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Could you cite the part of Pastor Aeternus that states the Pope does not have that authority?

It is paragraph 3 of Chapter 3 on the Primacy:
This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."

Here are statements from other Catholic Magisterial sources:
This supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, venerable Brethren, does not oppress but helps, does not destroy but builds up, confirms in dignity, unites in charity, and strengthens and protects the rights of his Brethren the Bishops. Pope Pius IX, Address to the Vatican Council (1870)

To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia…no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God. Pope Pius IX, Quod nunquam (1875)

** But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule…And the Roman Pontiffs, recognizing their duty, have willed above all to preserve in the Church everything that was divinely established. Consequently, just as they exert proper care and vigilance to protect their own power, so they have always taken care, and will continue to take care that the authority of bishops be protected. Indeed, they consider as given to themselves all honor and obedience that is given to the bishops.** Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896)

The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently, their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power, is much rather defended, upheld and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in the Church. Vatican 2, Lumen Gentium 27

HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and HH Pope Benedict have made similar statements, maintaining this constant teaching of the Catholic Church, which I’m sure you can look up online.

Case in point: Canon 758-3 of the Eastern Catholic Canon Law:

The particular law of each Church sui iuris or special norms established by the Apostolic See are to be followed in admitting married men to sacred orders.

The “special norms established by the Apostolic See” (Rome) have often impeded Eastern Catholic Bishops from ordaining married men to the priesthood (depending on if the Bishop has the misfortune to have his Eparchy outside of the “homeland” of his Church). This canon does not suggest these “special norms” can be dispensed with by these Bishops but they are told it is “to be followed.”

The issue of married Eastern/Oriental Catholic clergy in the traditional territory of the Latin Catholic Church (i.e., the “diaspora”)is not a violation of the teaching contained in the Magisterial statements cited above.

To properly understand the situation, we need to view it in light of the praxis of the early Church.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

It is about the notion of “territory.” It cannot be denied that when Eastern and Oriental Catholics came to the U.S. (and other “Western” lands), 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, 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.

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 the Latin bishops that prohibited 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.

I don’t understand why the Pope gets such guff over the matter. The “blame” rests squarely with Archbishop Ireland and all the North American bishops at the time (except for that one Latin bishop – though I forget his name). In fact, the Pope mitigated the situation for the Easterns. Ea Semper is couched in language which made the prohibition dependant on the condition of the times, and was thus not an absolute bar to ordination of married men in North America forever and ever. Further, as a result of the whole debacle, the Pope gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territory of another bishop. All this did not sit too well with the Latin bishops. Many people really have a misunderstanding of the papacy if they think it is all about control. Vatican 1 asserts that the Pope cannot impede the divinely-given authority of local bishops. And practically every Latin bishop in North America at the time really did not want any married priests in their districts. What could the Pope do? The Pope really did as much as a he could for the Eastern Catholics, given the circumstances. And I think he deserves a thank you instead of being villified by certain circles in Eastern Christendom (Catholic and Orthodox)

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

(1) Easterns during the time of Fr. Toth wanted the Pope to violate the local authority of Latin bishops in their favor.

(2) The Tradtionalists wanted the Pope to violate the local authority of Latin bishops to preserve the TLM.

(3) Certain Eastern Catholics want the Pope to violate the local authority of Ruthenian bishops to preserve their own Liturgy.

(4) Latinizers in Ukraine and India want the Pope to violate the local authority of their hierarchs in order to preserve their Latinizations.

The expected help is not coming not because the Pope does not want to help, but simply because it is not within his authority to impede the territorial authority of the local bishop. But people who misunderstand this sadly and wrongly end up blaming the Pope for everything.

Recently, I chanced upon an EO trying to blame the Pope for the harangues in Italy over married Romanian Catholic clergy. But the Pope had nothing to do with that – it was solely the action of the Italian episcopal conference (in case you are wondering, the Pope is not the president of the Italian episcopal conference), whose bishops have legitimate jurisdiction in Italy.

Here is a past thread which discussed this matter in greater detail: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=525328

In light of the above, permit me now to address the Canon which you cited, particularly the clause: “The particular norms established by the Apostolic See” Please note that our Canons are very specific in its language. It does not say “the particular norms established by the Roman Pontiff” (as in other places), but rather “the particular norms established by the Apostolic See.”As explained above, the decision for permission of married clergy has always rested with the local bishops, the Pope simply supporting the authority of the local bishops as per his obligation according to the constant teaching of the Church. The problem with this Canon is not that the Pope is impeding the rights of Eastern/Oriental bishops, but another one over which many here in ECF have expressed concerns and downright objections – the idea of the Roman Curia. The Curia is effectively a different authority than the Pope. On matters relating to the Oriental/Eastern Catholic Churches, the Curia has historically many times been at odds with the Pope. It was such excesses of Curial officials (especially their Latinizing agendas), and subsequent complaints from non-Latin hierarchs, which caused Pope Leo XIII to insist on the canonical rights of the Eastern/Oriental Churches through several decrees. Just relatively recently, a Curial official sought to expel married Ukrainian Catholic priests from Poland. He was privately reprimanded by the Pope, and the priests remained. Another incident (which IIRC was mentioned by brother Ciero) was a Curial decree trying to forbid the Melkites from transferring a bishop to a vacant See in the diaspora, which was their right. The Pope gave no signs to support the Curia, and the attempted Curial interference came to naught.

In short, the problem you perceive with the Canon you cited certainly has to do with an issue that needs to be addressed between the Orthodox and the CC, but it does not touch upon the teaching of the CC on papal primacy.

I pray I have sufficiently answered the question of why the issue of the prohibition of married clergy is not a violation of the ecclesiological teaching of the Vatican Councils. Far from it, the episode demonstrates the exact opposite. Take it in light of examples (2) thru (4) that I mentioned above, and hopefully you can see the truth of this. For the sake of mutual understanding and unity (at least at this grass roots level), if you have any other questions or concerns, please voice them, and your reasons for them.

Also, if you or anyone else have any issues or concerns about other actions that reflect on the Primacy, let’s discuss them here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Dear Brother Marduk,

Thanks for your considered reply. I have a few comments to make but will not be able to get to this until either later tonight or tomorrow.

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Dear Brother Marduk,

Due to time constraints, I will have to give a condensed reply. I hope, though, it will address your points sufficiently.

Could you cite the part of Pastor Aeternus that states the Pope does not have that authority?

It is paragraph 3 of Chapter 3 on the Primacy:
This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.”…

The quotes you gave strongly support the authority of the episcopacy. But, where do they say the Pope’s authority is limited? These quotes do say the episcopal authority is “asserted, confirmed, and vindicated” by the papal authority. But, again, I missed where these quotes limit papal authority. Could you supply quotes that indicate that papal authority is limited when it is exercised in relation to the episcopacy?

As to the issue of papal authority and the regulation of the Eastern tradition of a married clergy:

You are correct that the notion of “canonical territory” has a lot to do with this. First, a couple of comments and questions to statements you made:

Just relatively recently, a Curial official sought to expel married Ukrainian Catholic priests from Poland. He was privately reprimanded by the Pope, and the priests remained.

The Curial official was the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Soldano. If he was “privately reprimanded by the Pope,” where is the record of this? And, why would such conduct be reprimanded privately?

The press reported that Cardinal Soldano cancelled the order after the intervention of two other Cardinals:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6984?eng=y

What was issue again was this concept of “territory.” As the article cited above states, the Cardinal gave the order for married Ukrainian Catholic priests to leave Poland:

without taking into account that they had always lived there and that what really moved were the borders, in the redrawing of boundaries after World War II.

This concept of territory still stands. In this case in Poland, there was no vindication of Eastern rights. It all came down to territory and the recognition that Ukrainian Catholics in Poland were within their traditional territory.

That papal authority is involved in the restriction of the ordination of married men outside of their “traditional territory” can be seen in news reports from the 2010 Synod of Middle Eastern Bishops held in Rome. As reported, A Coptic Catholic Bishop “asked Pope Benedict XVI to revoke a decision made in the 1930s that Eastern churches can ordain married men only in their traditional homelands.” See:

cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=1286&pagetypeID=8&sitecode=US&pageno=2

The Synod put this matter into its final recommendations. See section 23:

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_24_speciale-medio-oriente-2010/02_inglese/b25_02.html

As to Cum Data Fuerit (1929):

This was a papal decree that enforced celibacy on the Ruthenian Byzantine Church and impeded the rights of the Ruthenian Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood here in America. A lot more could be said about this but for the sake of this discussion I think we should limit it to this point:

The Pope used his authority to impede the Ruthenian Bishop’s rights.

For a full account, the whole story is well documented in the book Historical Mirror:

archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963

There were several appeals to the Pope over this matter and the Pope did not remove his decree. Cum Data Fuerit led directly to the schism between the Ruthenian Byzantine Church of Pittsburgh and ACROD (American Carpatho Russian Orthodox Diocese) of Johnstown, PA.

As to your statement that this suppression of rights is the fault of the Curia and not the Pope:

It may well be true that occasional directives are the result of over-zealous underlings in the Eastern Congregation. But, where are the statements from the Pope which indicate he supports the right for Eastern Catholics to ordain married men “in the diaspora”? Why is it that the Coptic Catholic Bishop asked Pope Benedict to “revoke the decision”? Why has not the Pope spoken up in defense of Romanian and Ukrainian Catholics in Italy over this issue? Why does the Ruthenian Church in the US have to obtain permission from Rome to ordain married men to the priesthood?

The answer is simple: the Pope has, in the Catholic tradition, regulatory power over the rights of the Eastern Bishop outside of the traditional territory.

A full account of this problem with regards to ordaining married men in the Eastern Catholic Churches can be read here:

orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests/

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Just to add:

I realize the situation in Italy does not directly involve papal authority as in this case it’s the Italian Episcopal Conference doing the restriction and not the Pope. Still, the case in Italy is reflective of the general view of many in the Latin Rite towards the Eastern tradition in their backyard.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

I realize the situation in Italy does not directly involve papal authority as in this case it’s the Italian Episcopal Conference doing the restriction and not the Pope. Still, the case in Italy is reflective of the general view of many in the Latin Rite towards the Eastern tradition in their backyard.

I am only perhaps 60% in agreement with you for 2 reasons:

I disagree with your assesment because if you have read the Italian Episcopal Conference’s comments on the matter, it seems they are willing to be more permissive when there are more Romanian Catholics in Italy. Currently, Romanian Catholics make up less than half a percent of the Catholic population, less than the general worldwide percentage of non-Latins in the Catholic Church.

I disagree with you insofar as this seeming prejudice is small compared to the rampant prejudice against all things Latin among certain Eastern Orthodox circles - you can often read of opposition to all kinds of genuinely orthodox Latin practices from the pens of EO polemicists.

However, I agree with you insofar as if there is any prejudice against the Eastern Tradition from Latins, it is wrong and should be removed (the same, I’m sure you would grant for your Latin brethren in the face of EO polemics against orthodox Latin practices). For unity to occur, all these prejudices have to be rooted out and removed.

I also agree with you because from the demographics of the situation, it seems that Romanian populations tend to conglomerate in specific areas, so it is not as if you will automatically find married Catholic priests “all over the place” in Italy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This post requires a little more time for a response, time that I don’t have at the moment. I promise to respond next week (after the July 4 family festivities).

Have a great and safe July 4 weekend (if you are in the U.S.).

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Brother Marduk,

Due to time constraints, I will have to give a condensed reply. I hope, though, it will address your points sufficiently.

The quotes you gave strongly support the authority of the episcopacy. But, where do they say the Pope’s authority is limited? These quotes do say the episcopal authority is “asserted, confirmed, and vindicated” by the papal authority. But, again, I missed where these quotes limit papal authority. Could you supply quotes that indicate that papal authority is limited when it is exercised in relation to the episcopacy?

As to the issue of papal authority and the regulation of the Eastern tradition of a married clergy:

You are correct that the notion of “canonical territory” has a lot to do with this. First, a couple of comments and questions to statements you made:

The Curial official was the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Soldano. If he was “privately reprimanded by the Pope,” where is the record of this? And, why would such conduct be reprimanded privately?

The press reported that Cardinal Soldano cancelled the order after the intervention of two other Cardinals:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6984?eng=y

What was issue again was this concept of “territory.” As the article cited above states, the Cardinal gave the order for married Ukrainian Catholic priests to leave Poland:

This concept of territory still stands. In this case in Poland, there was no vindication of Eastern rights. It all came down to territory and the recognition that Ukrainian Catholics in Poland were within their traditional territory.

That papal authority is involved in the restriction of the ordination of married men outside of their “traditional territory” can be seen in news reports from the 2010 Synod of Middle Eastern Bishops held in Rome. As reported, A Coptic Catholic Bishop “asked Pope Benedict XVI to revoke a decision made in the 1930s that Eastern churches can ordain married men only in their traditional homelands.” See:

cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=1286&pagetypeID=8&sitecode=US&pageno=2

The Synod put this matter into its final recommendations. See section 23:

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_24_speciale-medio-oriente-2010/02_inglese/b25_02.html

As to Cum Data Fuerit (1929):

This was a papal decree that enforced celibacy on the Ruthenian Byzantine Church and impeded the rights of the Ruthenian Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood here in America. A lot more could be said about this but for the sake of this discussion I think we should limit it to this point:

The Pope used his authority to impede the Ruthenian Bishop’s rights.

For a full account, the whole story is well documented in the book Historical Mirror:

archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963

There were several appeals to the Pope over this matter and the Pope did not remove his decree. Cum Data Fuerit led directly to the schism between the Ruthenian Byzantine Church of Pittsburgh and ACROD (American Carpatho Russian Orthodox Diocese) of Johnstown, PA.

As to your statement that this suppression of rights is the fault of the Curia and not the Pope:

It may well be true that occasional directives are the result of over-zealous underlings in the Eastern Congregation. But, where are the statements from the Pope which indicate he supports the right for Eastern Catholics to ordain married men “in the diaspora”? Why is it that the Coptic Catholic Bishop asked Pope Benedict to “revoke the decision”? Why has not the Pope spoken up in defense of Romanian and Ukrainian Catholics in Italy over this issue? Why does the Ruthenian Church in the US have to obtain permission from Rome to ordain married men to the priesthood?

The answer is simple: the Pope has, in the Catholic tradition, regulatory power over the rights of the Eastern Bishop outside of the traditional territory.

A full account of this problem with regards to ordaining married men in the Eastern Catholic Churches can be read here:

orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests/

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

I am only perhaps 60% in agreement with you for 2 reasons:

I disagree with your assesment because if you have read the Italian Episcopal Conference’s comments on the matter, it seems they are willing to be more permissive when there are more Romanian Catholics in Italy. Currently, Romanian Catholics make up less than half a percent of the Catholic population, less than the general worldwide percentage of non-Latins in the Catholic Church.

I had not read that the Italian Episcopal Conference had stated they would be willing to be more permissive when there are more Romanian Catholics in Italy. I would be very interested to read that if you could supply the source. The only thing I’ve read related to that is where the president of the Italian Bishops Conference stated:

“after having carefully examined the issue in light of the figures relating to the consistency of the ethnic communities from Eastern European countries and the situation of clergy in the Italian dioceses, believes that, at present and in general, there is not ‘just and reasonable cause’ to justify the granting of the dispensation.”

from:

sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2011/03/italian-catholic-episcopal-conference.html

That, of course, only states that they don’t feel the situation is warranted at present. It doesn’t indicate a future willingness, at least explicitly.

I disagree with you insofar as this seeming prejudice is small compared to the rampant prejudice against all things Latin among certain Eastern Orthodox circles - you can often read of opposition to all kinds of genuinely orthodox Latin practices from the pens of EO polemicists.

I read a lot of stuff on the Internet both pro and con from Catholic and Orthodox polemicists. I take very little stock in those statements (from both sides) and I would suggest you should do the same. I can tell you that in my home parish (which rents at a very low price its chapel from the local Roman Catholic parish) there is excellent cooperation and respect between our two Churches. The chapel we use is now dedicated to our use (it was formerly a chapel used by the Catholic college student ministry), but since it still belongs to the Catholic parish we have left undisturbed the Catholic paintings which hang there, adding our numerous icons to the chapel. I’ve never heard one negative comment from any of our parishioners about Catholics or the chapel we have had the privilege of renting (at a very reasonable cost) for over 10 years. I’m sure they exist on the Internet and perhaps this post will bring out some negative comment from some fellow Orthodox – I don’t know. I think the “EO and RC polemicists” talk is overstated, adds to the negativity in the ecumenical dialogue, and should be disregarded.

However, I agree with you insofar as if there is any prejudice against the Eastern Tradition from Latins, it is wrong and should be removed (the same, I’m sure you would grant for your Latin brethren in the face of EO polemics against orthodox Latin practices). For unity to occur, all these prejudices have to be rooted out and removed.

I also agree with you because from the demographics of the situation, it seems that Romanian populations tend to conglomerate in specific areas, so it is not as if you will automatically find married Catholic priests “all over the place” in Italy.

Fortunately, I’ve heard that there are a few Roman Catholic Bishops in Italy who “look the other way” and do not object to married Eastern Catholic priests in their area. After all, Italy is home to an indigenous Byzantine Rite (Albanian) Church which allows married priests. See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Greek_Catholic_Church

(Interestingly, there are also some Latin Rite parishes subject to those Byzantine eparchies (dioceses) in Italy but I’m guessing those Latin parishes still maintain the celibate tradition even though they are in Byzantine territory.)

Still, there are more Romanian and Ukrainian Catholics in Italy than Italo-Greek Catholics, so it seems odd that numbers are an issue for permission from the Italian Episcopal Conference. Perhaps this is because the Italo-Greeks are concentrated in the Southern part of Italy and the Romanian and Ukrainian Catholics are in the major cities like Rome and Milan, etc?

This post requires a little more time for a response, time that I don’t have at the moment. I promise to respond next week (after the July 4 family festivities).

Have a great and safe July 4 weekend (if you are in the U.S.).

I fully understand as my time is quite busy with personal and family obligations too. Best wishes for a great holiday weekend to you and your family!

Peter

 

[Mickey]

What are you complaining about now?

Not much.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Pastor aeternus

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I read a lot of stuff on the Internet both pro and con from Catholic and Orthodox polemicists. I take very little stock in those statements (from both sides) and I would suggest you should do the same. I can tell you that in my home parish (which rents at a very low price its chapel from the local Roman Catholic parish) there is excellent cooperation and respect between our two Churches. The chapel we use is now dedicated to our use (it was formerly a chapel used by the Catholic college student ministry), but since it still belongs to the Catholic parish we have left undisturbed the Catholic paintings which hang there, adding our numerous icons to the chapel. I’ve never heard one negative comment from any of our parishioners about Catholics or the chapel we have had the privilege of renting (at a very reasonable cost) for over 10 years. I’m sure they exist on the Internet and perhaps this post will bring out some negative comment from some fellow Orthodox – I don’t know. I think the “EO and RC polemicists” talk is overstated, adds to the negativity in the ecumenical dialogue, and should be disregarded.

I can’t tell you how happy I was to read this paragraph, Peter Mogila. May God bless you. Thank you so much for saying all that. It’s deeply encouraging to me.

And thank you as well to both you and Marduk for this discussion: I’m not really participating much at the moment, but I’m certainly glad for the opportunity to read along and learn more.

 

[gregdaly]

I think your explanation makes a lot of sense on the issue of married Eastern priests in the territory of Latin bishops.

However, I have to ask (sorry if it sounds contentious) - what good is a Primacy that can’t be used to help the Eastern Catholics when the territorial bishop is not only not helping them, but is not being just to them?

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Peter, I don’t know how logical it is to blame the Pope for simply siding with the “law of the land” (as Marduk expressed it).

**Also I have to ask - were there no celibate priests in Eastern Catholicism prior to this debacle in the United States?

I guess what I’m wondering is - at the time this occurred (I guess early 20th century?), was the presence of married priests more of a shock to the Latin Tradition than the presence of celibate priests to the Eastern Tradition?**

I look forward to people’s responses to my question.

In Christ,
Greg

As to Cum Data Fuerit (1929):

This was a papal decree that enforced celibacy on the Ruthenian Byzantine Church and impeded the rights of the Ruthenian Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood here in America. A lot more could be said about this but for the sake of this discussion I think we should limit it to this point:

The Pope used his authority to impede the Ruthenian Bishop’s rights.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Peter, I don’t know how logical it is to blame the Pope for simply siding with the “law of the land” (as Marduk expressed it).

**Also I have to ask - were there no celibate priests in Eastern Catholicism prior to this debacle in the United States?

I guess what I’m wondering is - at the time this occurred (I guess early 20th century?), was the presence of married priests more of a shock to the Latin Tradition than the presence of celibate priests to the Eastern Tradition?**

I look forward to people’s responses to my question.

In Christ,
Greg

Greg,

The Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic webpage gives some background and history here:

archeparchy.org/page/history/recognition.htm

Later, the Ruthenians got their own Bishop:

archeparchy.org/page/history/bishop-Takach.htm

Cum Data Fuerit is explained this way on their webpage:

In 1929, the Holy See issued a decree entitled Cum Data Fuerit. In this decree, the Holy See reiterated its previous position that the Greek Catholic clergy in America must be celibate. Bishop Takach vehemently opposed the new decree and used all possible means to persuade the Holy See to reverse its decision. When the Holy See rebuffed all appeals, Bishop Takach insisted that the celibacy decree must be obeyed. Using the celibacy decree as a rallying cry allegedly to safeguard traditional Eastern traditions, some priests and laity started an open campaign against him and attacked his authority to govern the Exarchate. Many parishes were drawn into the conflict and numerous legal battles for control of church properties ensued. Regrettably, the conflict produced a schism within the Exarchate and led to the formation of the Independent Greek Catholic Church.

As far as Eastern Catholic priests and celibacy. It’s not the norm but there are plenty of them just as there are celibate priests in Orthodoxy. Fr. Alexis Toth, who had the unfortunate conflict with Archbishop John Ireland was a celibate, a widower. That was likely one reason he had been sent to minister to Eastern Catholics here in America at the time since he was not married. Still, Archbishop Ireland was scandalized that Fr. Toth had been ordained as a married priest even though he was now a widower.

I think married priests are less of a shock to Latin Rite Catholics these days. Still, for some Latin Rite Catholics, supporting a married priesthood in the Latin Rite is proof one is not a loyal Catholic. For many Eastern Catholics the opposite is almost true: If an Eastern Catholic does not support the restoration of a married priesthood to the Byzantine Church then one is not fully Eastern.

Peter

 

[gregdaly]

Thanks for the explanation and links, Peter.

Cum Data Fuerit is explained this way on their webpage:

From what I see, the Holy See simply “reiterated” its previous decree which was based on the “law of the land.” Forgive me, being an outsider, I guess I just don’t see why the Pope in particular has to be blamed for it (I took Law for 3 years before deciding it was not for me). The only way he could be blamed is if he took it upon himself in a unilateral move to forbid married Eastern Catholic priests in the U.S. From Marduk’s explanation, he did not do this. Do you have any proof otherwise?

A possible case can be made that upon appeal by a bishop, it was the Pope’s duty to accomodate the Eastern Catholics. I wonder how Marduk would respond to that?

As far as Eastern Catholic priests and celibacy. It’s not the norm but there are plenty of them just as there are celibate priests in Orthodoxy. Fr. Alexis Toth, who had the unfortunate conflict with Archbishop John Ireland was a celibate, a widower. That was likely one reason he had been sent to minister to Eastern Catholics here in America at the time since he was not married. Still, Archbishop Ireland was scandalized that Fr. Toth had been ordained as a married priest even though he was now a widower.

I understand that celibacy is important. But is it absolutely necessary for the sacramental theology of either Church for a priest to be married or celibate? If not, I guess I am at a loss to understand the cause of the schism.

I think married priests are less of a shock to Latin Rite Catholics these days. Still, for some Latin Rite Catholics, supporting a married priesthood in the Latin Rite is proof one is not a loyal Catholic. For many Eastern Catholics the opposite is almost true: If an Eastern Catholic does not support the restoration of a married priesthood to the Byzantine Church then one is not fully Eastern.

That is interesting. I confess, once again, I don’t really understand why celibate or married priests is so important that it could cause schism.

Since you have stated that a celibate priesthood is not foreign to the mentality of the Eastern Church, I have to guess that there was something else going on that caused the schism. Does anyone have any comments on that?

I would also ask Latins: Why is a celibate priesthood so important? How long has it been part of your Tradition? If there are any Catholics from the Latin side reading this, I hope you can offer come (name removed by moderator)ut.

In Christ,
Greg