PRIMACY - Revisited

[Peter_Mogila]

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?

Up until about 1917 or so (not sure of the exact year at the moment) the Eastern Catholics did not have their own Bishop and were subject to Latin Bishops. Many of them felt, however, that their rights and the promises made to them when they entered union with Rome (such as respecting their tradition of a married clergy) should be respected no matter that they did not have their own Bishop. However, the Latin Bishops did not want to have a married clergy in the Eastern Catholic parishes and petitioned Rome to have it decreed that only celibate Eastern Catholic clergy should be sent here. That offended many Eastern Catholics but, as you say, it was the “law of the land,” though sometimes ignored.

After 1917 (or thereabouts), the Pope set up a parallel hierarchy and appointed an Eastern Catholic Bishop for the Eastern Catholics in the US. From then on the Eastern Catholics were not subject to the Latin Bishops. They were only subject to their Eastern Catholic Bishop. Here is where the interference with the rights of the Bishop comes into play. There was opposition to allowing the Eastern Catholic Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood from the beginning but this was ignored by the Eastern Catholic Bishop for many years. In 1929, however, the papal decree Cum Data Fuerit stated that this practice should stop among the Eastern Catholics in the US and this is the interference I am referring to.

Why did this cause schism? For many of the Ruthenians it was a disillusioning experience. After years of having a married clergy here in the US (even though it was forbidden but often ignored) it became clear after Cum Data Fuerit that the papal directive could not be ignored any longer. The last married priests ordained for the Ruthenians in the US were in 1929 and after that only celibates were ordained. Those Ruthenians that left to form what is now an Orthodox Church (ACROD) became disillusioned with the Union with Rome. Rome’s position was that they never meant for their agreement to the right of a married clergy for the Ruthenians to apply in all places but only in their home territory in Europe. The position of those who left is they never had been told of this limitation and they felt betrayed. Many Ruthenians, unhappy with the situation, stayed with the Ruthenian Bishop appointed by the Pope however even if they disagreed with the interference by the Pope in their Church.

A possible case can be made that upon appeal by a bishop, it was the Pope’s duty to accomodate the Eastern Catholics.

Normally, the Eastern Catholic Bishop would make the decision and the Latin Rite Bishops would have no say as to how the Eastern Catholics worshipped or lived their faith as they were not under the Latin Rite Bishop. It is important to note here that it was not the Latin Bishops who decreed the change. They had complained but had no authority over the Eastern Catholic Bishop. It was the Pope who made the decree, responding to the complaint of the Latin Bishops.

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?

The overwhelming majority of the Eastern Catholic priests were married (as in Orthodoxy). That this (the papal decree insisting on celibacy) caused schism can likely be explained because of the feeling of disillusionment for those who left. They felt that Rome had not stayed true to the terms of Union and were not being accorded what they felt were their rights. Their perspective on this can be read on page 4 of this 2009 issue of one of their Church newsletters discussing the 80th anniversary of Cum Data Fuerit:

acrod.org/assets/files/PDFS/Messenger/CM%20-%202-09_Church%20Messenger%20.pdf

Peter

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the explanation and links, Peter.

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?

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.

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

First, the Latin Church was in the process of building a national church in the USA at the time that the Ruthenians arrived. The Ruthenian bishops did not have jurisdiciton in the USA and the Latin Church did, so immigrants were to get approvals from the Latin bishops. It is still the case today that when eastern Catholics are present in a Latin jurisdiciton and have no bishop of their own ritual church, they are placed under the care of a bishop/eparch of the Latin Church by default, unless a different ritual church has been designated for their care.

Also, in the matter of property, the parish churches were owned by the community in Europe and they wanted to continue that way in the USA, but the norm in the USA was that the Church owned the churches. It was a very different way of operating in the USA than Europe.

Not to mention scandal of married priests, which is not a Latin Church norm.

The bishops/eparchs of Catholic Church (east or west) are like the Apostles, and they are celebate.

I read that the first law forbidding the priests to marry, for the Latin Church, was given at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 A.D. And then…

Session 24, Canon 10 the Council of Trent

CANON X.
If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.
The biblical reason, from the Pastoral Letters:

the bishop ought to be *unius uxoris vir *(1 Tim 3:2)
so ought the priest (Tit 1:6) and
so ought the deacon (I Tim 3:12)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html

 

[Vico]

…

Our canons specifically state that for the good of their flock, a local bishop can dispense from particular laws, universal laws, and even from laws directly established by the Roman Pontiff (not haphazardly, of course, but under certain conditions).

Blessings,
Marduk

To wit, CCEO Canons 1537, 1538, 1539.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P16R.HTM

 

[Vico]

Peter Mogila,

There were two exarchates established in 1924, which later became eparchies:

1958 Metropolitan Archdiocese of Philadelphia from Exarchate (Ukrainian)
1963 Diocese of Pittsburgh from Exarchate (Ruthenian)

The 1596 agreement (Union of Brest) was “to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians” not married clergy.

According to Sacred Oriental Congregation, Prot. No. 572-30, Rome, July 23, 1934,
But your Excellency knows well how, under the appearance of vast questions, there lies prevalently that much more restricted question, which has its origin in the regulation of article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit of March 1,1929, and by which was again decreed what had already been prescribed since 1890; that is to say, “that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates.”
You can read that here: stlouis.byzcath.org/links.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Greg,

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?

This is a good question, because it is on the minds of many. It is, however, a question akin to the philosphical quandary, “Can God make a rock He cannot lift?”

The fact is, the Primacy is not intended to micromanage the Church, even in an appellate capacity. The fact is, the Pope simply does not have the authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox Catholic bishop. The hierarchical constitution of the Church - DIVINELY established - demands that the Pope respects the authority of his brother bishops.

Generally speaking, one must not only take into consideration the authority of the local bishop, but the authority of local synods (in the Eastern/Oriental phrenoma) and episcopal conferences (in Latin phrenoma) to legitimately represent the local Church more generally.

The legitimate authority of a local Church (whether diocesan, Metropolitan, Primatial or Patriarchal jurisdiction) must always be held intact. That is just the way the Church was set up by divine establishment and ancient Sacred Tradition. As God is a God of order, so the Body of Christ on earth must reflect this good order. It is certainly a fantastic misunderstanding of the Primacy to think that the Pope can overthrow or disregard these local authorities, even for the cause of defending the rights of a particular group of people.

In fact, there are very few things that are reserved to the universal authority Pope alone that goes beyond the authority of the local bishop or the local plenary body of bishops. I can only think of 3 offhand - (1) marriage cases, and (2) dispensations from the vow of celibacy, (3) the lifiting of certain penalties attached to excommunications. Even the management of these cases demands a certain order of ecclesiastical procedure which precludes a purely unilateral action by the Pope.

In all other matters, the Primacy is exercised as an appellate authority, and the appealing authority is always a bishop (i.e., a layman or group of laymen or clerics cannot simply bypass their local bishop or Synod and appeal directly to the Pope as if those local authorities did not exist). This highlights a very important aspect of the hierarchical constution of the Church - the humility and obedience owed to Church authorities by those whom the Holy Spirit has placed under the care of those authorities. Without this other necessary aspect of the divinely established hierarchical structure of the Church, the Church falls into anarchy.

Consider all these things in formulating your own understanding of the hierarchical structure of an apostolic Church. There are points worthy of consideration on both sides. You have yourself presented a good point to ponder - e.g., is a small-t tradition more important than the unity of the Church? On the other hand, does not a local bishop or local plenary authority have the divine responsibility to provide for the spiritual needs of those souls whom God has given to him/them to nourish?

I guess when it gets right down to it, my answer is - why blame the Pope for something that is under the purview of the local Church authority to manage and direct?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

First, the Latin Church was in the process of building a national church in the USA at the time that the Ruthenians arrived.

I think many Eastern Catholics are unaware that, without downplaying their own concerns, the Latin Catholics were indeed second-class citizens in a country established on Protestant principles, and that priestly celibacy was a polemic point of contention between the Latin Catholics and the Protestants.

I read that the first law forbidding the priests to marry, for the Latin Church, was given at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 A.D. And then…

That can’t be true. The Eastern Council of Trullo almost 5 centuries earlier had already recognized that priestly celibacy was generally practiced in the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I think many Eastern Catholics are unaware that, without downplaying their own concerns, the Latin Catholics were indeed second-class citizens in a country established on Protestant principles, and that priestly celibacy was a polemic point of contention between the Latin Catholics and the Protestants.

That can’t be true. The Eastern Council of Trullo almost 5 centuries earlier had already recognized that priestly celibacy was generally practiced in the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

In the early Church the clergy was to abstain from conjugal relations with their wife. That is not the same as celebacy. See canons 6 & 7, Second Council of Lateran for law.

catholicfidelity.com/the-second-general-council-of-the-lateran-1139/

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

After 1917 (or thereabouts), the Pope set up a parallel hierarchy and appointed an Eastern Catholic Bishop for the Eastern Catholics in the US. From then on the Eastern Catholics were not subject to the Latin Bishops. They were only subject to their Eastern Catholic Bishop. Here is where the interference with the rights of the Bishop comes into play. There was opposition to allowing the Eastern Catholic Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood from the beginning but this was ignored by the Eastern Catholic Bishop for many years. In 1929, however, the papal decree Cum Data Fuerit stated that this practice should stop among the Eastern Catholics in the US and this is the interference I am referring to.

Contrary to popular belief, local Latin Churches had their own Synods prior to Vatican 2. After Vatican 2, they were generally called Episcopal Conferences, but before that time, local Latin Churches (e.g., the U.S.) had local synodal authorities that were still very akin to the synodal authority of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. The plenary Councils of Baltimore in the 19th century generally laid the groundwork for all “laws of the land” in the U.S. Even if the Easterns were eventually given their own bishop, that bishop was still under the authority of the local Synod (as would be the case even in the Eastern/Oriental ecclesiological phrenoma), which (unfortunately) was dominated by Latin hierarchs who did not want married clergy in the U.S. To repeat, cum data fuerit was only reflecting the existing “law of the land.” Though I am certainly sympathetic to the trials of my Eastern Catholic brethren during those days, I am not generally inclined to blame the papacy one iota for the exigencies of Cum data fuerit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

In the early Church the clergy was to abstain from conjugal relations with their wife. That is not the same as celebacy. See canons 6 & 7, Second Council of Lateran for law.

catholicfidelity.com/the-second-general-council-of-the-lateran-1139/

I’m not sure what the Lateran Canons have to do with priestly celibacy as enjoined by the Latin Catholic Church today. The Lateran Canons only seem to insist that those in orders cannot marry after orders, which was already recognized by the Eastern Council of Trullo as a valid precept.

The Latin practice recognized (and criticized) by the Trullan canons that priests and deacons should no longer have relations with their wives after ordination would seem to have more direct relevance for priestly celibacy as practiced in the Latin Church today.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Brother Marduk,

What you are saying is not true and easily refuted.

First, the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh explains it this way:

Unfortunately, the administration of Bishop Takach as the first bishop of the Greek Catholic Exarchate of Pittsburgh was not without controversy or conflict. 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.

This is from the official website of the Ruthenian Metropolia here:

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

This is borne by the historical documents of the time. See the book Historical Mirror, starting on page 158. This can be read online here:

archive.org/stream/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963/Historical_Mirror_Greek_Rite_Catholics_1884-1963#page/n169/mode/2up

Some quotes from the historical record. The Eastern (or Oriental) Congregation communicated the Pope’s response to Bishop Takach:

To: His Excellency
Basil Takacs

Ordinary of the Ruthenians
Pittsburgh, Pa.

Your Excellency:

This Holy Congregation has already sufficiently informed Your
Excellency with the letter No 154-1932 of last March 4th, what is
the mind of the Holy See in regard to the observance of the law of
celibacy by the Oriental clergy.

The decree of the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith
namely that priests , who wish to come to America to exercise their
Holy ministry among the faithful of the Oriental Rite, must be ce-
libate, or, at least, widowers, remains intact…

This interference by the Holy See in demanding celibacy brought quite a backlash among many Eastern Catholics at the time towards the Pope. Even though Bishop Takach had tried to get this papal decree reversed, he finally accepted the papal decree. This caused many then to rebel against Bishop Takach as he was seen as having given into the Pope on this issue. To quell the rebellion against both the Pope and Bishop Takach, this letter and an accompanying loyalty oath was sent to all Ruthenian priests by the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, DC, by orders of the Pope:

Reverend and dear Father:

Complying with the orders of our Holy Father the Pope, the sac-
red Congregation for the Oriental Church has instructed me to send
the enclosed formula to all the priests of the Ruthenian diocese
for the Podcarpathians in the United States, who are subject to
the Most Rev. Basil Takacs.

I am confident that you will unhesitatingly sign the formula,
affix your seal and return the document to me as soon as you can.

The disturbed conditions which prevails in your diocese has be-
en, and still is, a source of anxiety to the Sacred Congregation

His Holiness who cherishes your diocese, cordially wishes to
put an end to the present unhappy state of affairs.

The better and the more speedily to attain this end for the ad-
vancement of the cause of religion and the welfare of your diocese
and its faithful, it is proper, as I need not emphasize, that all
the clergy thereof, without distinction or exception, should openly
and unreservedly renew their pledge of loyalty to the Holy See.
Commending this important matter to your prompt attention…

DECLARATION

I the priest of the Greek Rite and
member of the Greek Rite Ruthenian Subcarpathian Eparchy in the
United States of America, greatly regret that on account of the ne-
farious instigations in our Eparchy the orders of the legitimate
authority, even those of the Holy See are despised and attacked.
By this declaration I wish state clearly that I abhore such line
of action and that I disassociate myself entirely from it in order
that nobody would even dare to accuse me maliciously of being a par-
ticipant or promoter of this rebellion.

Therefore, having in mind the well being of my Eparchy and of
the souls entrusted to me, I profess myself a faithful subject of
the Holy See and always ready to abide by the general and individu-
al orders, decrees and decisions of the Roman Pontiff and their sub-
stitutes, as of my legitimate Superiors, as well as by those on my
Eparchial Ordinary, promising to observe exactly their general and
particular orders, as they were issued in the past, at the present
and in the future, concerning the Universal Church or its part, espe-
cially those which have to do with the Rite and the Eparchy to
which I belong, namely all those ordinances contained in the Decree
of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church “Cum data fuerit”
issued March 1. 1929.

I also solemnly promise that according to my power and with the
help of God I will religiously try to hold back any attempts or in-
stigation against the ecclesiastical authority, which should be o-
beyed, in order that the blessed peace of Christ descend once more
upon our beloved faithful and remain with them perpetually.

This can be read online here:

archive.org/stream/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963/Historical_Mirror_Greek_Rite_Catholics_1884-1963#page/n189/mode/2up

This contradicts your statement:

The fact is, the Primacy is not intended to micromanage the Church, even in an appellate capacity. The fact is, the Pope simply does not have the authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox Catholic bishop. The hierarchical constitution of the Church - DIVINELY established - demands that the Pope respects the authority of his brother bishops.

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

I am not generally inclined to blame the papacy one iota for the exigencies of Cum data fuerit.

Not one iota?

The Ruthenian Byzantine Church accurately reports what happened with regards to Cum Data Fuerit. According to their website it was a papal decree that was resisted by the local Bishop until he had no recourse but to accept the interference.

For those wanting to read the story in full, I highly recommend some source documents in Historical Mirror, which were collected by a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic priest:

archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Thank you for the references. I had read through the tracts you referenced a little less than a year ago when it was brought to my attention at the Byzcath forum whilst discussin the same topic. The only conclusion I could draw from the documents was that the Pope made a decision between contending parties - namely, the lone Eastern bishop in the U.S. versus the entire body of the rest of bishops in the U.S. It is little wonder that your quotes indicate that the Pope made the decision. But I don’t draw the same conclusion you have made. To me, it is a matter of consistency.

I don’t know how long you have been lurking on CAF, but I am usually at the forefront of debates against the Absolutist Petrine view, which seeks to assign to the Pope a singular authority over and above the rest of the Church on just about every little matter in the
Church. Have you heard/read of the aphorism, “Rome has spoken the case is closed?” I’ve debated absolutist Petrine advocates on their attempt to use St Augustine’s statement to support their exaggerations. I’ve pointed out to them that the statement is made in the context of a whole series of orthodox decisions by local synods, and that the Pope was simply reiteriating their decisions. Absolutist Petrine advocates use the statement to try to assert some kind of unilateral authority of the Pope, but that is far from the case as the historical context proves. On the matter of “papal infallibility,” I’ve debated Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim that the exercise of “papal infallibility” is a unilateral exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium by the Pope, whereas I have demonstrated repeatedly that Vatican 1 asserted that it is very much a collegial of the Church’s infallibility. I have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim that the Pope’s confirmation in an Ecumenical Council means that he is the source and summit of an Ecumenical Council’s authority and infallibility. The examples can be multiplied.

As I said - to me, it is a matter of consistency. I give no quarter to Absolutist Petrine pretensions of unilateral papal absolutism in his orthodox decisions for the Church when it comes to both the primacy and infallibility. To be conscientiously consistent, I must necessarily apply the same paradigm to this situation, which - apart from my own epistemological principles - is demonstrably evident not to have been an exercise of unilateral papal absolutism. It is plainly obvious that the Pope was not imposing a unilateral decision against Bishop Takach (or was it Soter?), but was simply supporting the local body of bishops in his decision. That being the case, the Pope can no more be blamed for the situation, any more than the Pope can get sole credit for the orthodox decisions he made in the past during other controversies within the Church.

I suppose your rhetoric can be effective against Absolutist Petrine advocates who have no qualms about admitting papal absolutism in the Church. On the other hand, I would consider it altogether inconsistent (for me personally) to not give unilateral credit to the Pope for his orthodox judgments/decisions (in opposition to the Absolutist Petrine errors) that had a collegial character, while simultaneously giving the Pope unilateral blame for a judgment/decision that has an equally evident collegial character.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

What you are saying is not true and easily refuted.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I’m not sure what the Lateran Canons have to do with priestly celibacy as enjoined by the Latin Catholic Church today. The Lateran Canons only seem to insist that those in orders cannot marry after orders, which was already recognized by the Eastern Council of Trullo as a valid precept.

The Latin practice recognized (and criticized) by the Trullan canons that priests and deacons should no longer have relations with their wives after ordination would seem to have more direct relevance for priestly celibacy as practiced in the Latin Church today.

Blessings,
Marduk

Lateran addressed as law that those professed and in orders do not take wives, and those that did must separate.

There are three concepts. Celebacy means the state of not being married. Continence for the married and not receiving Holy Orders after Matrimony are two others.

Of the three, the Latin Church has decided that celebacy is the norm. For deacons it has been continence for the married and not receiving Holy Orders after Matrimony. Recently the continence for the married deacons has been questioned (there was a thread on it here on CAF), and seems to have been abandoned, even if not official.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

It is plainly obvious that the Pope was not imposing a unilateral decision against Bishop Takach (or was it Soter?), but was simply supporting the local body of bishops in his decision. That being the case, the Pope can no more be blamed for the situation, any more than the Pope can get sole credit for the orthodox decisions he made in the past during other controversies within the Church.

There’s a lot to be said about this and I hope to have time later today or tomorrow to reply. I find it incredible in the extreme that you cannot see some fault in the Pope’s decree. As part of a short reply for the moment: There was no synod that the Eastern Catholic Bishop was subject to where he was called upon to obey a majority decision. This was, plainly and simply, an intervention by the Pope against a local Bishop. (And this is not the only case of this kind to demonstrate this.)

On another level: If you’re interpretation is correct that the Pope was forced to confirm the wishes of the Latin Bishops and then was somehow forced to order the Eastern Catholic Bishop to not ordain married men (a plainly absurd interpretation) – what good would that use of the petrine office be? The Pope is forced to intervene to enforce the unfair request of the Latin Rite Bishops? Couldn’t the Pope exercise some prophetic voice and say to the Latin Rite Bishops: “What you’re asking for is against the canons: the Eastern Catholic Bishop is within his rights to ordain married men. You Latin Rite Bishops need to learn to respect the Eastern Church and its rights.” What value is there in a primacy that would force a Pope to decree something like that? And, if you say that the Eastern traditions are subject to the whim of the Latin majority what would that mean for East-West unity?

As to blame: I never said the Pope took unilateral blame. What I objected to was your statement that he had not one iota of blame in this situation – a situation that still continues in many places.

As far as this thread is concerned: this case is sufficient to show that the use of papal primacy does sometimes result in intervening in the local Bishop’s affairs, and in some cases in a rather unjust way.

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Lateran addressed as law that those professed and in orders do not take wives, and those that did must separate.

There are three concepts. Celebacy means the state of not being married. Continence for the married and not receiving Holy Orders after Matrimony are two others.

Of the three, the Latin Church has decided that celebacy is the norm. For deacons it has been continence for the married and not receiving Holy Orders after Matrimony. Recently the continence for the married deacons has been questioned (there was a thread on it here on CAF), and seems to have been abandoned, even if not official.

I see what you mean, thanks for the explanation.

You mentioned 3 distinct concepts on the matter: (1) celibacy; (2) continence for the married after ordination; (3) not receiving Holy Orders after Matrimony. There is actually a fourth - (4) no Matrimony after receiving Holy Orders. (2) actually has two subheadings:
(2a) continence around the time of celebrating the Eucharist;
(2b) constant continence after ordination.

(2b) is the direct precursor and impetus for the unique Latin Tradition on (1). (2b) was a reality in the Latin Church long before the Lateran Council. (4), which was the point of the Lateran canons, and which was acknowledged even by the Eastern Churches, does not really present a relevant consideration on the topic of the unique Latin understanding of celibacy in the priesthood.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Thanks for the further explanation. I believe I see where you are getting at now. The crux of the matter for me was this:

As to blame: I never said the Pope took unilateral blame. What I objected to was your statement that he had not one iota of blame in this situation – a situation that still continues in many places.

Forgive me, but this was actually how I had interpreted your statements previously, for the reason that every other Eastern with whom I have discussed this matter approached the issue on that premise - that it is the Pope and the Pope alone who is to blame for the incident. It is on that premise that I proffered the rejoinder that the Pope had not one iota of blame.

I can actually agree somewhat with your statement:

As far as this thread is concerned: this case is sufficient to show that the use of papal primacy does sometimes result in intervening in the local Bishop’s affairs, and in some cases in a rather unjust way.

I can “blame” the Pope on the issue at hand just as much as I “blame” the Pope for his judgment/decision against the Eastern and Oriental Latinizers in Ukraine and India. It was a judgment/decision in favor of the collegial authority of the local bishops. In any body of bishops, when a contentious issue arises on a non-doctrinal matter, the head (whether Metropolitan, Primate, Catholicos, Major Archbishop, Patriarch or Pope) will confirm the judgment of the majority, and some will always be on the losing end of the struggle. Primacy within collegiality is the ancient Rule of Faith of the Church. That was the principle at work for the issue under discussion. It is inconsistent to contemn the Primacy alone whilst it works within the context of collegiality.

You have stated, “There was no synod that the Eastern Catholic Bishop was subject to where he was called upon to obey a majority decision.” I really don’t know how you can say that based on Eastern ecclesiological principles, which Traditionally acknowledges the plenary authority of the body of bishops in any given region. Bishop Takach (or Soter?) was necessarily subject to the collegial authority of the body of bishops in that region (i.e., the United States; I guess a matter for further discussion is whether collegial authority must be formalized in an official Synod for it to be effective). As stated, the plenary Councils of Baltimore in the 19th century already established the “law of the land” for the United States. A great part of the impetus for the subsequent schisms in the U.S. (the matter of ecclesiastical property and the laws for the praxis of the Sacrament of Confirmation) were already established by those Synods.

If you’re interpretation is correct that the Pope was forced to confirm the wishes of the Latin Bishops and then was somehow forced to order the Eastern Catholic Bishop to not ordain married men (a plainly absurd interpretation) – what good would that use of the petrine office be?

It is the general rule, even in non-Catholic apostolic Churches, that the head bishop (whether Metropolitan, Primate, Catholicos, or Patriarch) must confirm the decision of the majority, particularly on non-doctrinal matters. Is it your position that head bishops have no free will in their decisions?

You ask, “what good would that use of the petrine office be?” I think I explained it to brother GregDaly in a previous post. That question presumes that the primacy is not intended to work within collegiality, which is an inconsistent position from an Eastern perspective. It seems that the principle of “primacy within collegiality” is only really an empty platitude to Easterns - what Easterns really want is, “primacy within collegiality only if it always works in our favor.” I implore your forgiveness if that comes across as insulting, but that what it seems like to me.

Are you aware that the Pope granted several indults from “the law of the land” in the first 3 decades of the 20th century that permitted several married Eastern Catholic priests to serve in the U.S.?

I think part of the issue is that the idea of “personal jurisdiction” within “territorial jurisdiction” is an unknown concept in Eastern Orthodoxy. This principle is practiced by the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It is not patristic, but borne of necessity by the reality of different Traditions within the same Communion of Churches. The Eastern Orthodox have only one Tradition, so you may not understand the struggles of the Catholic Church. It would be unfair to approach this matter on your EO principles based on a reality that your Church has not experienced. Do you understand what I’m talking about? Maybe we can discuss the matter from that perspective.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Brother Marduk,

All I can say that if this concept of primacy is used to reinforce restricting the traditions of the Eastern Churches it isn’t worth anything at all. If papal authority is used to interfere with the legitimate rights of the local Bishop in something so fundamental to the Eastern mindset as a married priesthood then we have to clearly identify it for what it is:

the use of papal primacy to interfere in the rights of the local Bishop.

The Eastern Catholic Bishop was not subject to any Latin Rite Bishops. He was subject only to the Pope. Again, there was no synod here that the Eastern Catholic Bishop was subject to. And even if there were (and there’s no proof of that), why would the Pope be constrained to take away the rights of an Eastern Catholic Bishop? Is it really your position that the Pope has no authority to tell neighboring Bishops that they need to respect the Eastern tradition?

It seems that the principle of “primacy within collegiality” is only really an empty platitude to Easterns - what Easterns really want is, “primacy within collegiality only if it always works in our favor.” I implore your forgiveness if that comes across as insulting, but that what it seems like to me.

That’s the problem with these sort of discussions as it causes the “apologist mindset” to come out to defend what is indefensible.

Brother Marduk, we’re talking about basic rights of the Eastern Churches. If papal primacy allows the Pope to interfere in the basic right of a local Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood, then there’s not much hope left for our Churches to reunite. If what happened with Cum Data Fuerit and Bishop Takach was a legitimate use of papal authority, then there’s not one Orthodox Bishop in the world who would consider union with Rome.

We Orthodox have a lot to apologize for, that I’ll grant. But, if Rome can’t back down on this sort of thing, there’ll be no Orthodox who’d agree to reunion under those terms. Not terms that allow (or would seem to force) papal authority to interfere with the local Bishop’s authority because other Bishops have no respect for the basic traditions of that ritual Church.

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

You ask, “what good would that use of the petrine office be?” I think I explained it to brother GregDaly in a previous post. That question presumes that the primacy is not intended to work within collegiality, which is an inconsistent position from an Eastern perspective. It seems that the principle of “primacy within collegiality” is only really an empty platitude to Easterns - what Easterns really want is, “primacy within collegiality only if it always works in our favor.” I implore your forgiveness if that comes across as insulting, but that what it seems like to me.

**what Easterns really want is, “primacy within collegiality only if it always works in our favor.” **

Not always, Brother Marduk. But, I think almost every Eastern Christian would expect that primacy would always protect their basic rights. Not on every situation. But, it seems it’s your position that primacy means that the basic rights of Eastern Christians are subject to being curtailed by papal primacy.

Are you aware that the Pope granted several indults from “the law of the land” in the first 3 decades of the 20th century that permitted several married Eastern Catholic priests to serve in the U.S.?

That was laudable. But, does that somehow excuse the wrongness of Cum Data Fuerit?

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

All I can say that if this concept of primacy is used to reinforce restricting the traditions of the Eastern Churches it isn’t worth anything at all. If papal authority is used to interfere with the legitimate rights of the local Bishop in something so fundamental to the Eastern mindset as a married priesthood then we have to clearly identify it for what it is:

the use of papal primacy to interfere in the rights of the local Bishop.

You said you are not blaming the Pope alone for the situation, but that is exactly what you are doing here. You seem to be refusing to acknowledge the collegial nature of the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit. Is that your position? Please respond.

As it is, that the principle of papal primacy is to be blamed for the exigencies of a decision which had a clearly collegial character is a straw man. It is just an excuse, IMO, imposed by polemical crowds to reject unity on a matter that did NOT in the least involve an exercise of unilateral, absolute authority. Or is it your claim that Cum data fuerit was an exercise of unilateral, absolute authority by the Pope? Please respond to that.

The Eastern Catholic Bishop was not subject to any Latin Rite Bishops. He was subject only to the Pope.

Are you saying that the collegial authority of a body of bishops in a region is only effective in a formal Synod? Is it your position that the Pope alone is responsible for the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit - that its prescriptions were not reflective of the “law of the land,” but were totally unknown to the bishops of the United States?

Again, there was no synod here that the Eastern Catholic Bishop was subject to.

What is your rationale for this statement? Were not all the Latin bishops opposed to having married priests in their territory? Are you saying that only a formal Synod can give voice to the collegial authority of a body of bishops?

And even if there were (and there’s no proof of that), why would the Pope be constrained to take away the rights of an Eastern Catholic Bishop?

This goes back to the matter of “personal jurisdiction” within “territorial jurisdiction.” That the Pope even gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territorial jurisdiction of the Latin bishops was a clear exercise of oikonomia for which there is no patristic precedence How was this supposed to work? Can the Pope override the plenary authority of a whole group of bishops in favor of just one bishop? Is that your position?

Is it really your position that the Pope has no authority to tell neighboring Bishops that they need to respect the Eastern tradition?

Popes did so several times. But it is within the prerogative of any bishop - for the good of his flock - to grant dispensations even from papal directives. But that is the point of disagreement between us, it seems. Unlike you, I do not view Cum data fuerit as a unilateral decree of the Pope, but was merely the Pope voicing the “law of the land.” The overarching principle at work here was primacy WITHIN collegiality, not primacy devoid of its proper collegial context.

So even if the Popes issued encyclicals to enjoin respect for the Eastern Tradition (which they did), if local Latin bishops felt that ON THIS ONE POINT OF MARRIED CLERGY, the scandal it might cause was a greater overarching concern for the region, then they could legitimately contest it. In any case, to extrapolate a concession by Easterns within the territorial jurisdiction of Latin bishops on one point of Eastern small-t tradition to a general and wholesale disrespect for the Eastern Tradition is a clear exaggeration, IMO.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

That’s the problem with these sort of discussions as it causes the “apologist mindset” to come out to defend what is indefensible.

I’m defending primacy within collegiality. Though I understand that you are defending the rights of the Eastern Tradition, I must admit that I am not sure exactly what ecclesiological principle you are yourself defending. You are clearly not defending the principle of collegiality.

Brother Marduk, we’re talking about basic rights of the Eastern Churches.

That’s a bit exaggerated. There was no across-the-board diminution of ALL things Eastern in the Latin territories, and there is certainly none in the Tradition territories of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

If papal primacy allows the Pope to interfere in the basic right of a local Bishop to ordain married men to the priesthood, then there’s not much hope left for our Churches to reunite. If what happened with Cum Data Fuerit and Bishop Takach was a legitimate use of papal authority, then there’s not one Orthodox Bishop in the world who would consider union with Rome.

Again, this was not a contest between the authority of a bishop and the primatial authority of the Pope, but a contest between the authority of a bishop with the COLLEGIAL authority of a group of bishops (which included the Pope). To make it an issue of the Primacy as such is a straw man.

But, if Rome can’t back down on this sort of thing, there’ll be no Orthodox who’d agree to reunion under those terms. Not terms that allow (or would seem to force) papal authority to interfere with the local Bishop’s authority because other Bishops have no respect for the basic traditions of that ritual Church.

I admit this seems an irresolvable quandary because we are approaching it from two completely opposite ecclesiological premises. My position is that the head bishop must support the whole on a non-doctrinal matter (this is what the Pope did for the territorial jurisdiction of the Latin bishops on the issue of celibacy; and this is what the Pope did recently with respect to his decisions against the Latinizers in the territorial jurisdiction of the Ukrainian and Indian Catholic Churches). Your position - it seems to me - is that the head bishop should be able to overthrow the will of the whole.

Blessings,
Marduk