PRIMACY - Revisited

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

**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.

My consistent position is only that a head bishop (on whatever level - metropolitan, patriarchal, universal) must support the majority of the body of bishops on a non-doctrinal matter.

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

I can agree with you that from an Eastern perspective, Cum data fuerit curtailed the rights of Eastern Catholics. I cannot agree however on the following points (if such points are what you are proposing):

1. That Cum data fuerit represented a wholesale, across-the-board diminution of the Eastern Tradition.
2. That Cum data fuerit was a judgment of the Pope based on a unilateral, absolute authority.
3. That Cum data fuerit did not simply give voice to the existing laws of the general body of bishops in their legitimate territory.
4. That Cum data fuerit had no other intention but to diminish the Eastern Tradition.
5. That Cum data fuerit did not address a real concern because of possible scandal from the perspective of the general body of Latin bishops in their legitimate territory.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

I’m going to be limited in time for a few days, so my response will be brief:

Your position - it seems to me - is that the head bishop should be able to overthrow the will of the whole.

No. That’s not my point. It’s very simple and doesn’t require long detailed arguments.

If the “will of the whole” is to force Eastern Bishops not to exercise their rights (in this case to ordain married men to the priesthood), then it’s a “will” that is improper.

We both agree that primacy needs to be exercised in collegiality. However, where we disagree is this:

I believe that primacy can never be properly used to squash the legitimate traditions exercised by a local Bishop.

You appear to be saying (and forgive me if I’m wrong) that the Pope’s decree Cum Data Fuerit was forced because of the attitude of the Latin Bishops.

Ultimately, the restriction was the Pope’s fault. Yes, the Latin Bishops requested it but he could have turned a deaf ear to their request. So, the fault is shared. However, the Pope could have responded by using this as a teaching moment. But he did not. Primacy in collegiality does not mean one is constrained to agree with an improper request.

One might say that this only represents the mentality of the times. On that, I’d disagree. We could multiply many, many quotes in Catholic documents as to the equality and equal dignity of rights from before this era.

Again, for readers here I suggest taking a look at how Cum Data Fuerit played out in the Ruthenian Church as documented in the book Historical Mirror:

archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963

This papal decree that interfered with the rights of the Ruthenian Catholic Bishop caused great turmoil. A contemporary account of what happened can be seen here from Time magazine:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758558,00.html

To this day, the right of Eastern Catholic Bishops to ordain married men is curtailed in many areas of the globe. Again, this is an example of papal primacy being used to interfere with a local Bishop.

From an Orthodox perspective, this highlights the problem as we see it in the exercise of the Roman primacy. If the Roman primacy means it can be used to restrict rights of Eastern Bishops in certain areas because their traditions (such as ordaining married men to the priesthood) are considered scandalous then it’s clearly an improper use of the primacy and argues against that sort of interpretation of primacy. A primacy that requires the Pope to enforce unjust requests from Bishops against a minority is a primacy that is meaningless and of no value and contradictory to what Christ taught.

Orthodox will never accept that vision of primacy.

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

My consistent position is only that a head bishop (on whatever level - metropolitan, patriarchal, universal) must support the majority of the body of bishops on a non-doctrinal matter.

So the head bishop must enforce an improper request against a minority?

I can agree with you that from an Eastern perspective, Cum data fuerit curtailed the rights of Eastern Catholics. I cannot agree however on the following points (if such points are what you are proposing):

1. That Cum data fuerit represented a wholesale, across-the-board diminution of the Eastern Tradition.

It hit hard at one of the most distinctive parts of the Eastern tradition: the ordination of married men.

1. That Cum data fuerit was a judgment of the Pope based on a unilateral, absolute authority.

If he had not so decreed, it would not have happened. He was not forced by Catholic canon law to accede to the request. He could have used it as a teaching moment to show forcefully how the Catholic Church respects the equal dignity of the Eastern Churches.

1. That Cum data fuerit did not simply give voice to the existing laws of the general body of bishops in their legitimate territory.

The existing laws were only in effect for the Latin Rite. They had no effect on the Eastern Catholics. It took the papal decree to enforce them on the Eastern Catholics. This was clearly an interference by the Pope in the rights of the Eastern Catholic Bishop.

1. That Cum data fuerit had no other intention but to diminish the Eastern Tradition.

Such I never claimed.

1. That Cum data fuerit did not address a real concern because of possible scandal from the perspective of the general body of Latin bishops in their legitimate territory.

“A real concern”? No Orthodox Christian could accept this as a real concern. It was a concern born out of ignorance and from a belief that the Latin tradition was superior.

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

So the head bishop must enforce an improper request against a minority?

I guess we disagree on the impropriety of the matter. IMO, it would only have been improper if the decree deprived the Easterns of their Sacraments. A married priesthood is not a necessary element for the exercise of the sacramental ministry AFAIK. In fact, a celibate priesthood was not foreign to the Eastern Tradition, whereas a -]celibate/-] (oops!) married priesthood was indeed foreign to the Latin Tradition. That, as well as the fact that both Ea Semper and Cum data fuerit were only effective according to the conditions of the times and were not absolute bars to married Eastern clergy mitigates for me the applicability of the term “improper” to the situation.

It hit hard at one of the most distinctive parts of the Eastern tradition: the ordination of married men.

As stated, celibate clergy is not unknown in the Eastern Tradition, but married clergy was indeed unknown - and even scandalous - to the Latin Tradition.

If he had not so decreed, it would not have happened.

Not so. Many Eastern parishes existed due to the largesse of Latin bishops. It is just a plain fact that the Eastern bishop did not have territorial jurisdiction in the U.S., but rather a personal jurisdiction. The idea of personal jurisdiction was something new and its rights and limits were not yet properly tested and refined at that time. It was a growing process, a trial period. As stated previously, the EO have not experienced this exigency, and it is unfair of them to impose their premises on such a different reality.

He was not forced by Catholic canon law to accede to the request.

Yet nothing in canon law permitted the Pope to contravene the territorial jurisdiction of a local bishop. In fact, Vatican 1 explicitly does not grant the Pope such a prerogative.

He could have used it as a teaching moment to show forcefully how the Catholic Church respects the equal dignity of the Eastern Churches.

Primacy does not coerce, but serve.

The existing laws were only in effect for the Latin Rite. They had no effect on the Eastern Catholics. It took the papal decree to enforce them on the Eastern Catholics. This was clearly an interference by the Pope in the rights of the Eastern Catholic Bishop.

This is a red herring and an anachronism. You know full well that the Church has traditionally functioned ecclesiastically on the principle of territorial jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction. In the ancient Church, a Christian of one Tradition who immigrated to the territory of another Tradition simply adopted the new Tradition. If enough Christians of the foreign Tradition immigrated to the same area, the local bishop might provide for their liturgical needs, but those Christians and their priest would always be under the omophor of the local bishop, not the foreign bishop. I don’t understand how you can claim to appeal to the idea of personal jurisdiction (i.e., “Latin Rite” vs. “Eastern Rite”) as if it was already an established principle in the Catholic Church during that time. As stated earlier, that the Pope gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territory of the Latin bishops was an exercise of oikonomia that had no precedence in the early Church. How was this supposed to work? Up to the 1930’s, the concept was still very much in its birth pangs. So to claim that this was a “clear interference” by the Pope is completely unjustified. The Pope created a bishop for the Easterns out of oikonomia. This was a new creature, and his “rights” were not yet established - there was certainly no tradition to which the Church could appeal to determine exactly what “rights” such a bishop with “merely” PERSONAL jurisdiction (as distinct from territorial jurisdiction) possessed.

“A real concern”? No Orthodox Christian could accept this as a real concern. It was a concern born out of ignorance and from a belief that the Latin tradition was superior.

Yes, I understand full well that this is the Orthodox perspective. But I think it reveals a very parochial mentality. The Orthodox obviously do not understand what a bone of contention the issue of priestly celibacy was between Latin Catholics and Protestants. In a Protestant land where Latin Catholics were second-class citizens, and where a celibate priesthood was one of the identifiers of traditional Catholicism (as distinct from the outwardly similar and influential protestant Episcopal Church), I personally accept that rationale as a real and valid concern in those days. Today, that may no longer be a proper rationale in North America (though it may be a proper rationale in other places where mostly Latin Catholicism holds sway).

However, I can agree with you that there was certainly ignorance and prejudice involved. Nevertheless, it is obviously the same type of ignorance and prejudice which causes Orthodox Christians to not be sympathetic to the genuine and valid concern of Latin Catholics in a Protestant land during those days (not saying you are one of these).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

I guess we disagree on the impropriety of the matter. IMO, it would only have been improper if the decree deprived the Easterns of their Sacraments.

Yes, we disagree. A defense of Cum Data Fuerit by Catholics today will not encourage ecumenism at all. Orthodox will never accept that vision of primacy.

As stated, celibate clergy is not unknown in the Eastern Tradition, but married clergy was indeed unknown - and even scandalous - to the Latin Tradition.

To the Latin Tradition, yes. But, the Catholic Church was on record of honoring the rights of the Eastern Catholics.

**If he had not so decreed, it would not have happened. **
Not so. Many Eastern parishes existed due to the largesse of Latin bishops. It is just a plain fact that the Eastern bishop did not have territorial jurisdiction in the U.S., but rather a personal jurisdiction. The idea of personal jurisdiction was something new and its rights and limits were not yet properly tested and refined at that time. It was a growing process, a trial period. As stated previously, the EO have not experienced this exigency, and it is unfair of them to impose their premises on such a different reality.

If the Pope had not so decreed, it would not have happened. There would be hundreds of Eastern Catholic parishes today with married priests if Cum Data Fuerit had not happened. I don’t know how you could claim otherwise. Again, you can cite no Catholic canon law that said the Latin Rite Bishops had any jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholics who had their own Bishop. Such does not exist.

unfair of them to impose their premises on such a different reality

Yet, tens of thousands of Eastern Catholics at that time found this reality unacceptable. This is not a case of placing modern views on older times. It was a hot topic at that time – and still is.

Yet nothing in canon law permitted the Pope to contravene the territorial jurisdiction of a local bishop. In fact, Vatican 1 explicitly does not grant the Pope such a prerogative.

No Latin Rite Bishop tried to legislate the end of ordaining married men to the priesthood in Bishop Takach’s Eparchy. Show me ONE example. The only way this could happen is for them to get the Pope to agree to their wishes. This shows that they had NO jurisdiction over Bishop Takach’s Eparchy.

**He could have used it as a teaching moment to show forcefully how the Catholic Church respects the equal dignity of the Eastern Churches. **
Primacy does not coerce, but serve.

Such a primacy is worthless then if it is powerless to protect a minority.

For the record, I do not believe your characterization that the Pope was forced to to this because it was a majority request is true. I believe you are saying this because you feel forced to by your interpretation of primacy – an interpretation which I believe is false on its face. To require that the Pope **must ** accede to such a request is repugnant.

Continued…

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Continued…

The existing laws were only in effect for the Latin Rite. They had no effect on the Eastern Catholics. It took the papal decree to enforce them on the Eastern Catholics. This was clearly an interference by the Pope in the rights of the Eastern Catholic Bishop.
This is a red herring and an anachronism. You know full well that the Church has traditionally functioned ecclesiastically on the principle of territorial jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction. In the ancient Church, a Christian of one Tradition who immigrated to the territory of another Tradition simply adopted the new Tradition. If enough Christians of the foreign Tradition immigrated to the same area, the local bishop might provide for their liturgical needs, but those Christians and their priest would always be under the omophor of the local bishop, not the foreign bishop. I don’t understand how you can claim to appeal to the idea of personal jurisdiction (i.e., “Latin Rite” vs. “Eastern Rite”) as if it was already an established principle in the Catholic Church during that time. As stated earlier, that the Pope gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territory of the Latin bishops was an exercise of oikonomia that had no precedence in the early Church. How was this supposed to work? Up to the 1930’s, the concept was still very much in its birth pangs. So to claim that this was a “clear interference” by the Pope is completely unjustified. The Pope created a bishop for the Easterns out of oikonomia. This was a new creature, and his “rights” were not yet established - there was certainly no tradition to which the Church could appeal to determine exactly what “rights” such a bishop with “merely” PERSONAL jurisdiction (as distinct from territorial jurisdiction) possessed.

Brother Marduk, please refrain from the “you know full well…” sort of remarks.

Your response is in error. If the Eastern Bishop did not have this right, then why did it take the Pope to decree the change? The Eastern Bishop had the right (in 1930) and he lost them due to papal interference. You have not demonstrated that the Latin Bishops had any jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishop and his flock.

Yes, I understand full well that this is the Orthodox perspective. But I think it reveals a very parochial mentality. The Orthodox obviously do not understand what a bone of contention the issue of priestly celibacy was between Latin Catholics and Protestants. In a Protestant land where Latin Catholics were second-class citizens, and where a celibate priesthood was one of the identifiers of traditional Catholicism (as distinct from the outwardly similar and influential protestant Episcopal Church), I personally accept that rationale as a real and valid concern in those days. Today, that may no longer be a proper rationale in North America (though it may be a proper rationale in other places where mostly Latin Catholicism holds sway).

Well, I’m surprised to hear you accept it.

As to the “those days” comment…this has still been a problem and directly led to the conflict between the Ruthenian Church and Rome in 1998 when it tried to promulgate legislation allowing it to ordain married men in the US.

And if it might be the “proper rationale in places where mostly Latin Catholicism holds sway” then there will be no Orthodox Christians seeking unity with Catholicism there. This sort of thing kills ecumenism real quick.

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

However, I can agree with you that there was certainly ignorance and prejudice involved. Nevertheless, it is obviously the same type of ignorance and prejudice which causes Orthodox Christians to not be sympathetic to the genuine and valid concern of Latin Catholics in a Protestant land during those days (not saying you are one of these).

Yes, I am one of those.

I can imagine that an Orthodox Christian response to the situation facing the papal decree against Eastern Catholics ordaining married men to the priesthood was along these lines. They would have told the Eastern Catholics then:

**Latin Catholics are scandalized by your legitimate tradition. The guarantees you received from Rome when you entered union is valid in your homelands but may not be valid in other lands. So, it is clear the Eastern tradition is not equal in dignity to the Western tradition. Further, the Latin Catholics appear to believe that their tradition of a celibate clergy is more important than honoring the concept that your tradition is of equal dignity. **

If that is “ignorance and prejudice,” I plead guilty.

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Yes, we disagree. A defense of Cum Data Fuerit by Catholics today will not encourage ecumenism at all. Orthodox will never accept that vision of primacy.

To be perfectly clear, I’m not arguing that the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit were fair. I’m arguing that its promulgation was ecclesiastically proper. I don’t agree with you that it was a matter of a Pope unilaterally overriding the authority of an Eastern bishop (which would be improper, by all means), but rather of a body of bishops determining the needs of their region (i.e the U.S.) and appealing to the Pope to settle the matter (which is indeed proper). You haven’t shown anything whatsoever to prove that Cum data fuerit was an exercise of a unilateral, absolute papal authority by which the Catholic teaching on the Primacy can be rejected.

To the Latin Tradition, yes. But, the Catholic Church was on record of honoring the rights of the Eastern Catholics.

A reality that was very much in the conscious awareness of the Church in Europe, but North America was not Europe. North America was a different reality. It was a new nation, a new Church and was still in its birth pangs on a lot of matters.

If the Pope had not so decreed, it would not have happened. There would be hundreds of Eastern Catholic parishes today with married priests if Cum Data Fuerit had not happened. I don’t know how you could claim otherwise.

And I don’t see the basis for such a prognostication. Cum data fuerit was promulgated because of numerous complaints by Latin bishops. Let’s assume Cum data fuerit did not occur. The most natural result would have been another plenary Synod of the American bishops where there would be a formal synodal acknowledgment of the 1907 Ea semper. The Eastern bishop might appeal to the Pope, and we would be back to the same situation, except that Easterns today would no longer have any excuse to blame the Pope for the whole debacle and impugn the primacy.

Again, you can cite no Catholic canon law that said the Latin Rite Bishops had any jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholics who had their own Bishop. Such does not exist.

I’ve never claimed that Latin Rite bishops had jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics, so whether such a law exists is inconsequential. But their bishop was still answerable to the collegial authority of the body of bishops in the U.S., if not the Pope, and the prescriptions of the plenary councils of Baltimore for the U.S. in the 19th century was still the law of the land for all bishops in the U.S.

Yet, tens of thousands of Eastern Catholics at that time found this reality unacceptable. This is not a case of placing modern views on older times. It was a hot topic at that time – and still is.

I understand that, but I think there was a lot of polemics involved in the matter. The polemicists misrepresented the situation as a wholesale disrespect for the Eastern Tradition, which I don’t see by any stretch of the imagination.

No Latin Rite Bishop tried to legislate the end of ordaining married men to the priesthood in Bishop Takach’s Eparchy. Show me ONE example. The only way this could happen is for them to get the Pope to agree to their wishes. This shows that they had NO jurisdiction over Bishop Takach’s Eparchy.

I don’t understand your rhetoric here. No bishop has jurisdiction over any other bishop’s eparchy. But any one bishop is answerable to the collegial authority of the body of bishops in his region. That this collegial authority was expressed through a papal rescript instead of through a formal Synod is irrelevant. The greater body of bishops in that territorial jurisdiction did not want married priests. End of story. The attempt to use the situation to attack papal primacy is a straw man.

Such a primacy is worthless then if it is powerless to protect a minority.

The Pope gave indults to permit married Eastern clergy to serve in the U.S. The Pope gave the Easterns their own bishop in the territorial jurisdiction of the Latin bishops. The Pope made the restriction through the Decrees Ea semper and Cum data fuerit dependant on the condition of the times, instead of being an absolute bar to married clergy in the Latin territories. The Pope had the authority to do these things, but he did not/does not have the authority to flat out contradict the collegial authority of the whole body of bishops in the Latin territories. The Pope did what he could in the face of trenchant opposition to married clergy by the Latin bishops. You claim that you’re not arguing for the Pope to be able to impede the collegial authority of a body of bishops, but everything you’ve said given the whole context of the circumstances of the situation shows me otherwise. So I hope you’ll understand why I am not in the least impressed by the Eastern rhetoric on the matter.

For the record, I do not believe your characterization that the Pope was forced to to this because it was a majority request is true.

I don’t believe it either, because I never claimed that the Pope was forced. All I’ve ever claimed was that the Pope’s decision was an exercise of primacy within collegiality, not an exercise of some unilateral absolute power by which some EO pretend they can impugn the Catholic doctrine on the Primacy.

I believe you are saying this because you feel forced to by your interpretation of primacy – an interpretation which I believe is false on its face. To require that the Pope **must ** accede to such a request is repugnant.

My interpretation is based on Apostolic Canon 34. If that is repugnant to you, that is really more of a reflection on the Eastern rhetoric than my own, n’est pas?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Brother Marduk, please refrain from the “you know full well…” sort of remarks.

Sure. Still, did you not know it?

Your response is in error. If the Eastern Bishop did not have this right, then why did it take the Pope to decree the change? The Eastern Bishop had the right (in 1930) and he lost them due to papal interference.

Actually, your response is in error. The Eastern bishop never had the inherent right to ordain married men. That’s a mistaken assumption. As already stated, a bishop with merely personal jurisdiction was a new creature in the history of the Catholic Church. The rights of a bishop with personal jurisdiction within the territorial jurisdiction of another bishop is not founded on Tradition, so it was a new creation still in its birth pangs. The new bishop hardly had any inherent rights and initially needed the permission of the local Latin bishops for many of the things that bishops of territorial jurisdictions took for granted. That Eastern married clergy were still permitted to serve in the U.S. before Cum data fuerit was not the result of bishop Soter having an inherent right to ordain, but because the Pope at that time regularly granted indults to the law of the land (vid. Ea Semper). The Pope granted indults (much fewer) after Cum data fuerit was promulgated, but make no mistake about it. This new creature that was a bishop with “merely” PERSONAL jurisdiction never had the inherent right to ordain married clergy.

Btw, it might interest you to know that Cum data fuerit actually EXPANDED the rights of the Eastern bishop, though ordaining married clergy was never one of them.

You have not demonstrated that the Latin Bishops had any jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishop and his flock.

Well, I don’t feel I need to demonstrate something I never claimed.

Well, I’m surprised to hear you accept it.

I accept that the Latin bishops had a legitimate concern for their faithful, not just in terms of scandal, but also to preserve their identity in a Protestant land that regularly demeaned the celibate priesthood. I hope you don’t try to extrapolate anything else from that comment beyond what I literally said.

As to the “those days” comment…this has still been a problem and directly led to the conflict between the Ruthenian Church and Rome in 1998 when it tried to promulgate legislation allowing it to ordain married men in the US.

I stand by my “those days” comment. What is occuring today - well, let’s just say I am much more sympathetic to the Eastern/Oriental cause. But the exigencies of “those days” does not conscientiously permit me to support any sort of Eastern rhetoric that would use “those days” as a basis for disunity.

And if it might be the “proper rationale in places where mostly Latin Catholicism holds sway” then there will be no Orthodox Christians seeking unity with Catholicism there. This sort of thing kills ecumenism real quick.

Forgive me for saying so, but I think the EO rhetoric is missing the big picture. It is popularly conceded that if and when reunion occurs, the Eastern Catholics (never mind the Oriental Catholics) will be reabsorbed back into their mother Churches. When that occurs, there will be no doubt that married clergy will be the norm again. The dropping of the title “Patriarch of the West” holds much promise in this regard. This may indicate a dropping of territorial jurisdiction outside the Traditional territories in Europe, and open the way for local territorial jurisdictions in the diaspora (outside Europe) where married priests are acceptable. I believe the issue of celibacy exists in large part because a great part of the Church which has married priests is not Catholic. But once reunion occurs, that will no longer be the case, and the idea of married Orthodox Catholic priests will be more ubiquituous and generally acceptable, even to Latin Catholics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

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

An excellent demonstration of the fasting tradition since the early Church. Here is an intersting article on it by Roman Cholij, Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

You can see a distinction in the matter of continence with holy orders, contrasting the east and west:

In the Eastern Churches these are the minor orders: acolyte, lector, cantor, and subdeacon.

The subdeacon was a Latin Church major order (beginning 1207 A.D.) yet not a Holy Order, and they were not to marry after becoming a subdeacon.

Council of Trent:

“… to wit those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank: for the subdeavonship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.”

“On the conditions required in the Ordination of a Subdeacon and Deacon: on no one shall two sacred Orders be conferred on the same day.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Yes, I am one of those.

I can imagine that an Orthodox Christian response to the situation facing the papal decree against Eastern Catholics ordaining married men to the priesthood was along these lines. They would have told the Eastern Catholics then:

**Latin Catholics are scandalized by your legitimate tradition. The guarantees you received from Rome when you entered union is valid in your homelands but may not be valid in other lands. So, it is clear the Eastern tradition is not equal in dignity to the Western tradition. Further, the Latin Catholics appear to believe that their tradition of a celibate clergy is more important than honoring the concept that your tradition is of equal dignity. **

If that is “ignorance and prejudice,” I plead guilty.

In your case, I wouldn’t say “ignorance” is involved. “Prejudice” on the surface might seem appropriate. I don’t know, my brother. I look at your rhetoric above, and I can only think of St. Paul’s exhortation that all things are lawful but not all things are beneficial - if you see that your actions may scandalize your brother, you should be willing to relinquish your lawful right to the action.

Apart from that very relevant biblical principle, I don’t see the issue of forbidding married clergy in traditionally Latin territories where it might cause a scandal as a wholesale diminution of the Eastern Tradition in the least. That it is so presented is, to me, a merely polemic tactic with no basis in reality. I do think that what is going on is Italy is unfair. I do think that the existence of the prohibition today is unfair. But the solution to that is dispensation of more knowledge, which will cancel the ignorance, and, hopefully, also the prejudice. The solution is not rebellion, or continued disunity. I believe unity, more than anything else, will be the great solution to this particular issue, since that unity will bring the necessary knowledge to the rest of the Church (i.e, the Latins) that will dispel both the ignorance and the prejudice that comes with ignorance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

It is popularly conceded that if and when reunion occurs, the Eastern Catholics (never mind the Oriental Catholics) will be reabsorbed back into their mother Churches. When that occurs, there will be no doubt that married clergy will be the norm again. The dropping of the title “Patriarch of the West” holds much promise in this regard. This may indicate a dropping of territorial jurisdiction outside the Traditional territories in Europe, and open the way for local territorial jurisdictions in the diaspora (outside Europe) where married priests are acceptable. I believe the issue of celibacy exists in large part because a great part of the Church which has married priests is not Catholic. But once reunion occurs, that will no longer be the case, and the idea of married Orthodox Catholic priests will be more ubiquituous and generally acceptable, even to Latin Catholics.

Hoping to reply to the meat of your response later today but wanted to comment on the above as an aside.

The idea that the West is waiting for reunion to occur before it would openly accept married priests in Eastern Catholic parishes in the “diaspora” is a bit unsettling to this Orthodox Christian. Especially, when the viewpoint espoused by those like Fr. Laurent Touze is still common in many places:

zenit.org/article-28589?l=english

ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?

Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.

So, if primacy means that the majority of the bishops in an area wish to outlaw what they find offensive among a minority group who are under different bishops and all they have to do is make that request to the Pope and he will so order it – what would happen if this view of Fr. Touze’s gains greater acceptance? Do Orthodox risk the possibility that in some areas of the world their practice of ordaining married men might be viewed as scandalous? Could the Pope then step in and restrict the right to ordain married men in those areas?

For those interested in a refutation of Fr. Touze’s view, see:

east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm

Finally, you had stated:

I do think that the existence of the prohibition today is unfair. But the solution to that is dispensation of more knowledge, which will cancel the ignorance, and, hopefully, also the prejudice.

Exactly! That is what the Pope should have done instead of issuing an edict restricting the right of Eastern Catholic Bishops. When the Pope starts such “dispensation of knowledge,” Orthodox will notice!

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

A worthy response.

The idea that the West is waiting for reunion to occur before it would openly accept married priests in Eastern Catholic parishes in the “diaspora” is a bit unsettling to this Orthodox Christian.

I find it unsettling too. But I am not saying we need to wait for reunion to occur. What I am affirming are:
(1) The Catholic Church is working to find a solution. The acceptance of married clergy from Protestant denominations, as well as the recently acquired authority of the Oriental Congregation to grant dispensations are a sure sign of this slow but sure movement. The very incident in 1998 with the Ruthenians that you cited earlier demonstrates that there is indeed more openness today than there was in the past.
(2) This issue should not be a bar to reunion.
(3) Reunion will definitely facilitate the matter if it has not yet been solved at the time.

To repeat, this is not an issue of papal primacy, because the primacy was not being used in the unilateral, absolutist sense that Orthodox fear. Bringing fears of absolutist papal domination into the matter is just a straw man. The issue here is simply and only the issue of ignorance and prejudice, of greater acceptance of the Eastern tradition in Latin Catholic circles. As opined, reunion will only serve to greatly facilitate this matter because Latins will become more generally aware that there are Catholics who have married priests.

I would offer you this suggestion. Think about how long it took your Church to realize that issues of the calendar or how to cross oneself or how to say a certain type of liturgy are not or never are sufficient to merit schism. What we need to acquire on this matter is a similar mentality - that the issue of priestly celibacy is not a matter that merits breaking up the body of Christ. Extreme opinions like that of Fr. Touze will probabaly always exist But does it merit the breaking of unity? The matter of personal (i.e., ritual) jurisdiction vs. territorial jurisdiction within the Catholic Church, and the attendant problems that come with it, is still in its infancy (in the OO communion, this issue arose in the early part of the late middle ages, but the OO have had many centuries to resolve and settle down into an acceptable phrenoma on the matter; the EO have never had to deal with this issue, and, to repeat, it is unfair for EO polemicists or apologists to impose their standards on a reality they have not experienced). But it slowly, and surely, is being resolved. I sincerely believe that the Pope’s giving up the title “Patriarch of the West” is part of the solution. We will have to see how it plays out. I, for one, live with hope on the matter, and am not inclined to submit to the exaggerated soothsayings of polemicists on either side.

Especially, when the viewpoint espoused by those like Fr. Laurent Touze is still common in many places:

zenit.org/article-28589?l=english

Ugh! That’s all I’ve got to say. Such tensions will probably always exist. This is the most extreme I’ve ever seen it - likening priestly celibacy unto a dogma. I seriously don’t think this is a very common Catholic perception. It’s certainly not a position reflected in any magisterial document of which I’m aware. The advice I always give to people is - stick to the magisterial documents. That’s the only way to know for sure the mind of the Church.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

So, if primacy means that the majority of the bishops in an area wish to outlaw what they find offensive among a minority group who are under different bishops and all they have to do is make that request to the Pope and he will so order it – what would happen if this view of Fr. Touze’s gains greater acceptance?

There are two matters to address in this portion:
(1) The idea that the Pope will automatically outlaw something a majority of bishops will find offensive. As constantly affirmed, that’s not what happened with the celibacy issue in the latter 19th/early 20th century), so I don’t know why you keep putting it in those terms. The only thing you can literally infer from the Historical Mirror is that the Pope made a decision that favored the local regional Church. You have no grounds to claim from that same source that this decision was a UNILATERAL exercise of ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY. What happened was that the will of the body of bishops in the U.S. on celibacy was expressed through a papal rescript, instead of an American synodal decree. Most likely, the bishops did not feel a need to call a Synod because, initially, it was not a matter that affected the entire American Church (since the Easterns only existed in scattered communities). Even after the Easterns acquired a bishop, there was no need to call a Synod on a matter which all the rest of the bishops were already unanimous. The Pope through a papal rescript simply confirmed the “law of the land.” The exact same situation has occurred recently in Ukraine and India, with regards to the Latinizing elements in those Churches. The only difference is that the indiginous authorities actually did enact their positions formally through a Synod. The Latinizing elements appealed to the Pope and the Pope simply confirmed the decisions of those Synods against the Latinizers.

So I would appeal to consistency here. Are you going to say that it was the Pope who outlawed the Latinizers, or are you going to say that it was the local authorities who did so? Please respond to that. Please also respond to the following question that I had posed previously to which you did nto respond: Is it your position that a body of bishops can express their collegial will for their region ABSOLUTELY ONLY and ALWAYS through a Synod? I would also proffer a new question for you to answer and I would appreciate a response: Is it your position that a body of bishops in a region CANNOT have a collegial will unless they are convened in a Synod? Depending on your answer, I have some follow-up questions to test for consistency.

(2) The possibility that Fr, Touze’s position (likening priestly celibacy unto a dogma) will ever gain greater acceptance. Personally, I believe the likelihood is nil, for there is absolutely no magisterial source in Sacred Tradition down to this day that claims that priestly celibacy can be likened unto a dogma. The Church has always recognized priestly celibacy to be a matter of discpline.

Do Orthodox risk the possibility that in some areas of the world their practice of ordaining married men might be viewed as scandalous? Could the Pope then step in and restrict the right to ordain married men in those areas?

It would not be possible for two reasons:
(1) Provision for married priests or ministers from non-Catholic confessions who join the Catholic communion already exists.
(2) Whatever else might happen, it would not be a matter of the Pope making the decision. The decision would rest with the local episcopal conference/synod (that’s the way it is now). Supposing that the episcopal conference/synod decides against allowing married priests, and let’s assume that some bishops appeal to the Pope. The Pope would have the authority to either (1) confirm the decision of the episcopal conference/synod, or (2) grant indults to local bishops to ordain married men. Whatever the case may be, it is NOT going to be a matter of the papal primacy obstructing the rights of local bishops.

Exactly! That is what the Pope should have done instead of issuing an edict restricting the right of Eastern Catholic Bishops. When the Pope starts such “dispensation of knowledge,” Orthodox will notice!

The Pope’s have consistently asserted and demanded respect for the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. Our brother Vico is a well of info on souce documents, so if he is reading this, perhaps he can cite some of these many historic statements from the Popes for us here. But it seems you are adhering to the usual Absolutist and Low Petrine misconception that primacy is about control and coercion. It’s not, and the Vatican Councils never understood nor taught it that way. The Popes can issue all the authoritative statements they want about respecting the Eastern and Oriental Traditions, but such papal assertions alone is not and never has been sufficient to solve any issue in the Church as a whole (and there is nothing in the V1 decrees that would indicate that this is how papal primacy or infallibility works). The Pope must still work with the will of the local authority that has territorial jurisdiction, for he has no right according to Vatican 1 to be the cause for impeding such local territorial authority. The Pope can mitigate matters (as he did for the Easterns on the celibacy issue by granting indults, giving them their own bishop, and asserting that the prohibition depended on the condition of the times), but he cannot flat-out overthrow the local territorial authority.

Blessings,
Marduk