The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[malphono]

I read the first 4 and last 3 pages of your link, then gave up trying to find the exact place where we discussed the topic of the appointed Maronite Patriarch – but I do distinctly remember we had a discussion on it.

It looks like you couldn’t find it because you didn’t look at the right pages. It starts on page page 24. See [post=5364737]post 114[/post] as a jumping-off point.

There are some factors we need to consider for the papal appointment.

First, that the Pope can appoint a bishop in a non-Latin Church is not unpatristic or uncanonical. If the Synod of the local Church cannot choose a patriarch or local bishop for some reason OR within the time prescribed by the Canons, the Pope can legitimately make an appointment. We can otherwise certainly wait for another Ecumenical Council to make the decision, but I believe we are fortunate that we as Catholics can turn to the Pope in such instances. I do not see such instances as a unilateral, dictatorial action by the bishop of Rome, but is done by him for the good of the local Church, since each local Church needs a visible head. Would you agree with this (if the underlined portion above is/was indeed the case)?

The long and short of it is that the appointment was made on **Day 1 **of the 1955 conclave, after precisely 1 vote. To claim “deadlock” in such a circumstance is ludicrous by any standard.

Second, I know from my research on that period of Lebanese history that the Maronite Church was strongly divided between a pro-Arab faction and a pro-French faction.

Levantine politics, ecclesiastical as well as secular, are rather a complicated affair, and there remain divisions within in the Synod despite the fact that the “court has been packed,” as it were, especially in the past 40 years. Nonetheless, looking at 1932 (even though the post WWI French Mandate was still in force) or 1955 (which was 9 years into “independence” following the formal end of the French Mandate), I would not call it a “pro-French faction” but rather a pro-Syro-Maronite one.

Third, there does not seem to be a record of a single contemporary objection to the Pope’s appointment of the Patriarch. In fact, there are some sources who refer to the Patriarch’s ascension to the throne as an election.

There were 3 bishops who refused to acknowledge the appointment and summarily went into exile.

In light of the three factors above, is it not possible that the Synod - knowing they could never agree on a choice for a Patriarch - agreed to submit the matter to the Pope? Is it not also possible that they submitted a list of names to the Pope for selection, and the Pope simply chose one of those candidates - which would fully explain why certain Maronite sources refer to the ascension as an election (since the Synod was not devoid of participation in the choice of candidate)?

No, the Synod did not voluntarily submit to Rome.

I present these points for consideration in light of the fact that I really don’t know the story behind the appointment, aside from the fact that there was an appointment. I don’t see any reason so far for us to automatically assume that - even if it was an appointment - this was a unilateral action by the Pope.

I don’t assume. I look. And in doing so I fail to see by any stretch how that the travesty of 1955 can be seen as anything other than a unilateral intervention by Rome.

Those are my comments from my recollection of that past discussion (I don’t know why, but I keep thinking that the appointment was sometime in the 1930’s, not in the 50’s. I’m probably mistaken, but I hope we are referring to the same set of circumstances ).

The Conclave of 1932 was entirely different. That resulted in a true election despite the bitterness between the pro-Arab and pro-Syro-Maronite factions. What I am referring to is **1955 **. And I won’t even go into the charades of subsequent “conclaves.”

 

[mardukm]

The long and short of it is that the appointment was made on **Day 1 **of the 1955 conclave, after precisely 1 vote. To claim “deadlock” in such a circumstance is ludicrous by any standard.

WOW! That actually reinforces beyond a shadow of a doubt (to me anyway) that the involvement of the Pope was known prior to the Synod. Whether the Pope just said one day “I’m going to choose your Patriarch for you, no ifs, ands, or buts,” or if the bishops actually appealed to the Pope for a decision, is still very much an open question.

Of course the decision would have to be announced at the formal election Synod. Little wonder it happened on day 1.

Levantine politics, ecclesiastical as well as secular, are rather a complicated affair, and there remain divisions within in the Synod despite the fact that the “court has been packed,” as it were, especially in the past 40 years. Nonetheless, looking at 1932 (even though the post WWI French Mandate was still in force) or 1955 (which was 9 years into “independence” following the formal end of the French Mandate), I would not call it a “pro-French faction” but rather a pro-Syro-Maronite one.

Good point. The pro-Arab position was contended by those who sought to maintain the unique Syriac-Maronite identity of Lebanon.

There were 3 bishops who refused to acknowledge the appointment and summarily went into exile.

(1) Did they reject the fact of an appointment, or did they reject the candidate? Patriarch Meouchi was of the pro-Arab faction, which may not have been very popular.
(2) Was the exile accomplished by patriarchal or papal decree?

No, the Synod did not voluntarily submit to Rome.

I don’t assume. I look. And in doing so I fail to see by any stretch how that the travesty of 1955 can be seen as anything other than a unilateral intervention by Rome.

There is still much to discuss before the truth of these statements is established.

The main thing which causes me to doubt the immediate truth of your statements is the simple fact that Pope Pius XII was the strongest papal advocate for the independence of the non-Latin Churches and their equality with the Latin Church up to that time. He was a great progressive for the rights of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. It is simply out of character for him to have unilaterally imposed his will on the Maronite Church.

The Conclave of 1932 was entirely different. That resulted in a true election despite the bitterness between the pro-Arab and pro-Syro-Maronite factions. What I am referring to is **1955 **. And I won’t even go into the charades of subsequent “conclaves.”

Thanks for the clarification.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

WOW! That actually reinforces beyond a shadow of a doubt (to me anyway) that the involvement of the Pope was known prior to the Synod. Whether the Pope just said one day “I’m going to choose your Patriarch for you, no ifs, ands, or buts,” or if the bishops actually appealed to the Pope for a decision, is still very much an open question.

Meouchi was “chosen” by his patron in Rome in 1948.

EDIT: OTOH, the bishops didn’t quite expect that, when Moran Mor Antonious Petrous passed on and a conclave was called, that they would have been shut-out of the proceedings. Such had never happened in the past.

(1) Did they reject the fact of an appointment, or did they reject the candidate? Patriarch Meouchi was of the pro-Arab faction, which may not have been very popular.

Both. The appointed candidate would never have been elected.

(2) Was the exile accomplished by patriarchal or papal decree?

Patriarchal.

There is still much to discuss before the truth of these statements is established.

The main thing which causes me to doubt the immediate truth of your statements is the simple fact that Pope Pius XII was the strongest papal advocate for the independence of the non-Latin Churches and their equality with the Latin Church up to that time. He was a great progressive for the rights of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. It is simply out of character for him to have unilaterally imposed his will on the Maronite Church.

Uh … let’s get real, Marduk. Contrary to what is often bandied about, Pius XII was no friend of the Orient. Further, he was rather a megalomaniac (e.g. remember that he refused to name a Secretary of State and merely had a pro-prefect) so such precipitous action was absolutely 100% within character .

 

[mardukm]

Meouchi was “chosen” by his patron in Rome in 1948.

EDIT: OTOH, the bishops didn’t quite expect that, when Moran Mor Antonious Petrous passed on and a conclave was called, that they would have been shut-out of the proceedings. Such had never happened in the past.

Can you please expand on the statement that the bishops were “shut out of the proceedings?” Is this presumed simply for the fact that there was an appointment? If it is true that Rome favored him since 1948, isn’t it possible that the bishops were already prepared for this? I find it strange that Rome would even have expressed an opinion on the matter at such an early date. Maybe Patriarch Arida was of ailing health and there was already talk of his successor as early as that time, and given the tenuous political situation of Lebanon at the time (and the Maronite Church’s well-known involvement in the politics of Lebanon), Rome’s advice was sought. I’m just speculating, of course.

Both. The appointed candidate would never have been elected.

That’s likely. It still leaves open the question of whether the bishops had priorly agreed to a papal appointment because they knew other candidates would not have gained a majority of votes either. Patriarch Arida died at the age of 91. Surely, there was already talk of possible candidates for his succession several years before that.

Uh … let’s get real, Marduk. Contrary to what is often bandied about, Pius XII was no friend of the Orient.

What are your reasons for saying this?

Further, he was rather a megalomaniac (e.g. remember that he refused to name a Secretary of State and merely had a pro-prefect) so such precipitous action was absolutely 100% within character .

From what I read, he had a Secretary of state, and when he died, Pius XII simply split up the responsibilities of the Secretary of state to two positions/offices. In any case, that’s really got nothing to do with his relationship to the non-Latin Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Can you please expand on the statement that the bishops were “shut out of the proceedings?” Is this presumed simply for the fact that there was an appointment?

If there was no election, then it follows that the electors were shut-out of the process.

If it is true that Rome favored him since 1948, isn’t it possible that the bishops were already prepared for this?

They were prepared to deal with the promoted candidacy, but not with having their rights as electors trampled.

I find it strange that Rome would even have expressed an opinion on the matter at such an early date. Maybe Patriarch Arida was of ailing health and there was already talk of his successor as early as that time, and given the tenuous political situation of Lebanon at the time (and the Maronite Church’s well-known involvement in the politics of Lebanon), Rome’s advice was sought. I’m just speculating, of course.

Oh my, but the bilge about Moran Mor Antonious’ being “in failing health” sounds like it comes directly from the Pacelli Playbook. Anyway, any “talk of a successor” that there may have been was in the form of a monologue from the mouth of Pacelli. Moran Mor Antonious knew his own right and, thwarting Pacelli’s wishes refused to resign, so Rome had to wait. Too bad.

And BTW, the political situation in Lebanon in 1955 wasn’t all that tenuous. It was, actualy, the most stable and prosperous period in the country’s rather short modern history.

That’s likely. It still leaves open the question of whether the bishops had priorly agreed to a papal appointment

Seems to me that kind of begs the question. What the bishops knew is that failure to elect within the designated time frame, could result in Roman intervention. Isn’t that enough? Why in the world would they cede their rights as electors? Keep in mind, too, that in 1955 there weren’t the throngs of bishops that we have now, and there were initially more than 3 who dissented. Two of the three reconciled on their deathbeds. The other dissenters were “persuaded” to acquiesce within a few days.

because they knew other candidates would not have gained a majority of votes either.

What, they had crystal balls to know the future?

Patriarch Arida died at the age of 91. Surely, there was already talk of possible candidates for his succession several years before that.

I’m sure there was talk of same. And there were certainly bishops capable of assuming the Patriarchal throne.

What are your reasons for saying this?

I’ll counter with what are your reasons for saying otherwise? Is it because he scrapped Gaspari’s work on the CCEO?

Still, I’ll add here that one would have to know Maronite, Lebanese, and indeed Levantine history to fully appreciate it. There was, and had been, a lot of “stuff” going on.

From what I read, he had a Secretary of state, and when he died, Pius XII simply split up the responsibilities of the Secretary of state to two positions/offices. In any case, that’s really got nothing to do with his relationship to the non-Latin Churches.

It may have been so, but I don’t recall the details at the moment. In any case, though, the fact remains that Pacelli kept the portfolio of State unto himself. IIRC, he did the same with several other dicasteries, naming mere pro-prefects to run the office but without the authority to actually do anything.

You know that I respect you, Marduk, and even agree with you on the “High Petrine” issue among other things, but it strikes me that you are grasping at straws on this one rather than admit that Rome has, in fact, both precipitously and unilaterally, intervened in the affairs of an Oriental Church. One can whitewash it, one can rationalize it, or one can even call it a refrigerator, but the fact is that what happened in 1955 happened.

 

[mardukm]

If there was no election, then it follows that the electors were shut-out of the process.

After some research, I found a contempoarary newspaper article regarding the event:
archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/24th-june-1955/8/threat-of-a-maronite-split-ended
It seems the Patriarch was appointed because there was indeed a growing danger of schism in the Maronite Church at the time. It also states that all the bishops immediately submitted to the decision. The article also mentions that the matter was reported on in local Beirut radio. It makes me wonder about the three bishops who were exiled by Patriarch Meouchi. It doesn’t seem as though they were exiled because they disagreed with the appointment per se, but probably because of something that had to do with the Patriarch himself. How long after his enthronement did the exiles occur?

Btw, after some more reading, I found out that though Patriarch Meouchi indeed explicitly proclaimed the Arab identity of the Maronites (which did not endear him to the conservatives), he did this only after he was elected. And he nevertheless constantly and strongly opposed President Chehab’s adherence to Nasser’s pan-Arab ideology. So I question your claim that Meouchi would never been chosen Patriarch. books.google.com.ph/books?id=2BXdK0Jv1BMC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=Patriarch+meouchi&source=bl&ots=mL18LMUS7e&sig=sCK9lHGzN2RxYL0TbQY1aCh3qDs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNjXUKyZOM7PrQfimIHQDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Patriarch%20meouchi&f=false

They were prepared to deal with the promoted candidacy, but not with having their rights as electors trampled.

Why is it seen as a trampling when there was no objection to the appointment? If there were objections and then the Pope insisted, then I can see some merit in the claim. Maybe the bishops realized that it was the only way to stave off a split in the Church?

Oh my, but the bilge about Moran Mor Antonious’ being “in failing health” sounds like it comes directly from the Pacelli Playbook.

Really? Pius XII at some point claimed that Patriarch Areeda was of failing health and wanted to replace him? Is there some documentation on this?

Anyway, any “talk of a successor” that there may have been was in the form of a monologue from the mouth of Pacelli. Moran Mor Antonious knew his own right and, thwarting Pacelli’s wishes refused to resign, so Rome had to wait. Too bad.

By this, I assume there is proof that Pope Pius XII requested Patriarch Areeda’s resignation? Can you back up this claim with some documentation?

And BTW, the political situation in Lebanon in 1955 wasn’t all that tenuous. It was, actualy, the most stable and prosperous period in the country’s rather short modern history.

I was talking about 1948 when you claimed that Pope Pius XII made his desire known. I don’t think the Arab-Israeli war was stable for ANY country in the Middle East during that time. I’m sure you’ll agree.

Seems to me that kind of begs the question. What the bishops knew is that failure to elect within the designated time frame, could result in Roman intervention. Isn’t that enough? Why in the world would they cede their rights as electors? Keep in mind, too, that in 1955 there weren’t the throngs of bishops that we have now, and there were initially more than 3 who dissented. Two of the three reconciled on their deathbeds. The other dissenters were “persuaded” to acquiesce within a few days.

The statement that prompted this response is moot at this point given that news article that I found. The only question that remains is the real cause of the exile. Was the dissent by the three bishops actually caused by the appointment, or was it due to something borne of the Patriarch himself.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

What, they had crystal balls to know the future?

Moot question at this point, but I was referring to them possibly having discussed possible successors before Patriarch Areeda’s death because of possible ill health and already arriving at a conclusion that they could not agree. From the news article, it seems that was actually the case.

I’m sure there was talk of same. And there were certainly bishops capable of assuming the Patriarchal throne.

Sure, but the question still remains whether any one of them would have the necessary votes.

I’ll counter with what are your reasons for saying otherwise? Is it because he scrapped Gaspari’s work on the CCEO?

(1) the first Pope to permit married non-Catholic clergy to remain clergy when they became Catholic.

(2) Completed the codification of the CIC Orientalis. I don’t think many non-Latin Catholics appreciate how ground-breaking this was especially for the issue surrounding the provisions of cum data fuerit. Before Pope Pius XII, non-Latin Catholics were still popularly regarded as Rites of the Latin Catholic Church without their own laws. For all its real and pretended deficiencies according to its non-Latin critics, the CIC Orientalis was instrumental in instilling within the Catholic Church the mentality that non-Latin Catholics should be jurisdictionally independent from local Latin hierarchies, and this was indeed the EXPLICIT intention of Pope Pius XII.

(3) The provisions of Cum data fuerit on priestly celibacy were only intended to exist according to the circumstances of the times and be temporary (as was explicitly stipulated in the original decree Ea semper) with the introductory clause, “In the meantime…,” and with the explicit stipulation that the decree should only be in effect for ten years. Thus, it was renewed in 1939 by Pope Pius XI. Pope Pius XII DID NOT RENEW Cum data fuerit, and never has been renewed since by the papacy. (NOTE: this fact makes It obvious that the maintenance of the celibacy laws in the traditional Latin territories is not by virtue of some sort of papal dictatorial imposition, but because of the collegial authority of the the local bishops, who just happen to be overwhelmingly Latin).

(4) Established a good number of new eparchies for non-Latin Catholics in traditional Latin Catholic jurisdictional territories;

(5) the first Pope to admit non-Latin Catholics to the college of Cardinals;

(6) His encyclical Mystici Corpis, with its message of the indispensability of all members of the body of Christ, is hailed as the direct seed of Vatican 2’s teaching on the equality of the Churches.

(7) In his encyclical Orientalis ecclesiae, he wrote: “Each and every nation of Oriental rite must have its rightful freedom in all that is bound up with its own history and its own genius and character, saving always the truth and integrity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.”

Your turn.

It may have been so, but I don’t recall the details at the moment. In any case, though, the fact remains that Pacelli kept the portfolio of State unto himself. IIRC, he did the same with several other dicasteries, naming mere pro-prefects to run the office but without the authority to actually do anything.

This is highly amusing. If the dicasteries were restricted in their authority, this is actually ideal from my pov. See! It CAN be done!

You know that I respect you, Marduk

Likewise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

After some research, I found a contempoarary newspaper article regarding the event:
archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/24th-june-1955/8/threat-of-a-maronite-split-ended
It seems the Patriarch was appointed because there was indeed a growing danger of schism in the Maronite Church at the time. It also states that all the bishops immediately submitted to the decision. The article also mentions that the matter was reported on in local Beirut radio.

I’m well aware of all that, and it doesn’t change things. (The part about “all bishop immediately submitted” is a lot of hooey, but never mind.) Rome could have at least waited the canonical election period out before imposing her will. Not that that would have made any practical difference, but at least Rome would have been following the letter, (though not the spirit) of her own law.

Although I’m not going to expound on this, (I really don’t think I have to), actually the prospect of schism might not have been a bad thing.

It makes me wonder about the three bishops who were exiled by Patriarch Meouchi. It doesn’t seem as though they were exiled because they disagreed with the appointment per se, but probably because of something that had to do with the Patriarch himself. How long after his enthronement did the exiles occur?

It wasn’t long. IIRC, within a month or so.

Btw, after some more reading, I found out that though Patriarch Meouchi indeed explicitly proclaimed the Arab identity of the Maronites (which did not endear him to the conservatives), he did this only after he was elected. And he nevertheless constantly and strongly opposed President Chehab’s adherence to Nasser’s pan-Arab ideology. So I question your claim that Meouchi would never been chosen Patriarch. books.google.com.ph/books?id=2BXdK0Jv1BMC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=Patriarch+meouchi&source=bl&ots=mL18LMUS7e&sig=sCK9lHGzN2RxYL0TbQY1aCh3qDs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNjXUKyZOM7PrQfimIHQDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Patriarch%20meouchi&f=false

What’s your point? He had no authority to proclaim any such thing prior to that. BTW, his opposition to Chehab and the Nasserists was of a more personal nature than anything else. It hinged on the idea of the power of the Patriarchate, and for all that Meouchi may have been or done (or not done, but I digress), he was not about to allow any civil authority to subjugate the prestige of his office.

Why is it seen as a trampling when there was no objection to the appointment? If there were objections and then the Pope insisted, then I can see some merit in the claim. Maybe the bishops realized that it was the only way to stave off a split in the Church?

See the first item above.

Really? Pius XII at some point claimed that Patriarch Areeda was of failing health and wanted to replace him? Is there some documentation on this?

By this, I assume there is proof that Pope Pius XII requested Patriarch Areeda’s resignation? Can you back up this claim with some documentation?

No doubt Pacelli’s missives are preserved in the Secret Archives.

I was talking about 1948 when you claimed that Pope Pius XII made his desire known. I don’t think the Arab-Israeli war was stable for ANY country in the Middle East during that time. I’m sure you’ll agree.

Actually I don’t agree. There was very limited involvement in that conflict, and had the 1946 presidential election in Lebanon not been stolen by the Arabist sympathizers, even that would not occurred.

The statement that prompted this response is moot at this point given that news article that I found. The only question that remains is the real cause of the exile. Was the dissent by the three bishops actually caused by the appointment, or was it due to something borne of the Patriarch himself.

For the first sentence, see above again. For the second part, as I’ve said before, it was both.

 

[malphono]

Moot question at this point, but I was referring to them possibly having discussed possible successors before Patriarch Areeda’s death because of possible ill health and already arriving at a conclusion that they could not agree. From the news article, it seems that was actually the case.

See again the first item in the previous post.

Sure, but the question still remains whether any one of them would have the necessary votes.

Ditto the above.

(1) the first Pope to permit married non-Catholic clergy to remain clergy when they became Catholic.

Hardly. Are you trying to tell me that all prior unions involved re-ordination? Please.

(2) Completed the codification of the CIC Orientalis. I don’t think many non-Latin Catholics appreciate how ground-breaking this was especially for the issue surrounding the provisions of cum data fuerit. Before Pope Pius XII, non-Latin Catholics were still popularly regarded as Rites of the Latin Catholic Church without their own laws. For all its real and pretended deficiencies according to its non-Latin critics, the CIC Orientalis was instrumental in instilling within the Catholic Church the mentality that non-Latin Catholics should be jurisdictionally independent from local Latin hierarchies, and this was indeed the EXPLICIT intention of Pope Pius XII.

He most certainly did not such thing with canon law. The project was nearly completed by Gasparri prior to his retirement, but was shelved by his successor at State. Sure, Pacelli eventually stole some of Gasparri’s work and put it out in bits and pieces under his own name (I think that’s called plagiarism but I digress), but the project of codification was left hanging and not completed until the 1990 CCEO.

(3) The provisions of Cum data fuerit on priestly celibacy were only intended to exist according to the circumstances of the times and be temporary (as was explicitly stipulated in the original decree Ea semper) with the introductory clause, “In the meantime…,” and with the explicit stipulation that the decree should only be in effect for ten years. Thus, it was renewed in 1939 by Pope Pius XI. Pope Pius XII DID NOT RENEW Cum data fuerit, and never has been renewed since by the papacy. (NOTE: this fact makes It obvious that the maintenance of the celibacy laws in the traditional Latin territories is not by virtue of some sort of papal dictatorial imposition, but because of the collegial authority of the the local bishops, who just happen to be overwhelmingly Latin).

Irrespective of any action or inaction on Rome’s part concerning the much touted “sunset clause” the fact remains that Cum data fuerit is still in force. Ask a JOCD.

((4) Established a good number of new eparchies for non-Latin Catholics in traditional Latin Catholic jurisdictional territories;

Perhaps some, but to which are you referring?

((5) the first Pope to admit non-Latin Catholics to the college of Cardinals;

False. I believe that distinction goes to Moran Mor Ignatious Gabriel Tappouni, who was given the red hat by Pius XI in 1935. In any case, as much as I do respect the memory of Pius XI (the “forgotten Pope” who was actually more of a friend to the East and Orient than most of either his predecessors or successors, but again I digress), it’s no secret in this forum that I am not, never have been, and never will be, a fan of red hats for Patriarchs.

((6) His encyclical Mystici Corpis, with its message of the indispensability of all members of the body of Christ, is hailed as the direct seed of Vatican 2’s teaching on the equality of the Churches.

(7) In his encyclical Orientalis ecclesiae, he wrote: “Each and every nation of Oriental rite must have its rightful freedom in all that is bound up with its own history and its own genius and character, saving always the truth and integrity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.”

OK fine, but I hardly think any of that was earth-shaking new teaching.

rotfl: This is highly amusing. If the dicasteries were restricted in their authority, this is actually ideal from my pov. See! It CAN be done!

Oh come on … it’s not that funny. I hardly think that dictatorial power is an improvement.

(Likewise.

Thank you, and with that I’m going to say Merry Christmas. Noting that you ignored the final comment in my earlier post, it seems pointless to continue this volley since we are obviously not going to find agreement here.

As a final comment, I will quote (in translation) Moran Mor Antonious’ dying words: “God save Lebanon”. He knew all too well what his earthly demise would mean to the Maronite Church and the country as a whole. History has proved him correct.

Anyway, again Merry Christmas.
:christmastree1:

 

[mardukm]

I’m well aware of all that, and it doesn’t change things. (The part about “all bishop immediately submitted” is a lot of hooey, but never mind.) Rome could have at least waited the canonical election period out before imposing her will. Not that that would have made any practical difference, but at least Rome would have been following the letter, (though not the spirit) of her own law.

Although I’m not going to expound on this, (I really don’t think I have to), actually the prospect of schism might not have been a bad thing.

OK. We’ll definitely have to disagree on that point. I think there is a definite problem when one believes schism is preferable to the condescension of episcopal authority, especially on a non-doctrinal matter (Pope St. Victor was wrong to think that the issue of the date of Easter should be a cause for schism, just as I believe it is wrong to think that schism is preferable to humbling oneself to an authority to prevent schism). I believe anyone - bishops included - for the sake of the divine mandate for unity, must not let claims to personal authority be more important. I believe that is what Jesus meant when he stated that the greatest is to be as the least. I believe the Maronite bishops understood that the Pope’s decision was the best way to avoid a schism.

What’s your point? He had no authority to proclaim any such thing prior to that. BTW, his opposition to Chehab and the Nasserists was of a more personal nature than anything else.

My point was (as stated) that Meouchi may not have been as unlikely a candidate for the Patriarchate as you claimed.

It hinged on the idea of the power of the Patriarchate, and for all that Meouchi may have been or done (or not done, but I digress), he was not about to allow any civil authority to subjugate the prestige of his office.

Good for him. The honor of an ecclesiastical office should never be subjugated to the civil power.

See the first item above.

I disagree. Every article I’ve read on Lebanon indicates that the Maronite Church was always seen as a firm political as well as moral foundation in the land. To let the situation of the bishops degenerate first to one of schism or even near-schism before asking for or allowing the Pope’s intervention I believe would have been subversive of the image of dependability and solid strength of the Church in the consciousness of the people, especially during this period in Lebanese history. As mentioned, I believe the Maronite bishops did the correct and holy thing. I certainly believe it was well within the rights of the Synod to insist on an explicit election, just as well as it was well within the rights of the Synod to accept the appointment. The non-Latin relationship to the papacy was obviously not yet explicitly spelled out canonically at that time, but the current canon law states that the Synod has the right to challenge an episcopal papal appointment if the papal selection is not one of the original candidates proposed by the Synod. Unless explicit facts demonstrate otherwise, I must assume that either Meouchi was “patriarchabili” D) or even if he wasn’t, the Synodal acceptance of the appointment is an indication that (if nothing else) the Synod as a whole felt the appointment was proper (or even necessary) at the time.

No doubt Pacelli’s missives are preserved in the Secret Archives.

Until there’s actual proof…

Actually I don’t agree. There was very limited involvement in that conflict, and had the 1946 presidential election in Lebanon not been stolen by the Arabist sympathizers, even that would not occurred.

A sudden influx of about 100,000 Muslim refugees into a primarily Christian country due to the war, a number of immigrants consituting (from what I’ve read) about 10-15% of the total population is not destabilizing? I agree we’ll have to disagree.

For the second part, as I’ve said before, it was both.

If it was both, I’d like to see documentary evidence (if it is readily available) of the objection to the act of papal appointment.

mardukm:

Sure, but the question still remains whether any one of them would have the necessary votes.

Ditto the above.

I’m not sure where you’ve addressed this.

Hardly. Are you trying to tell me that all prior unions involved re-ordination? Please.

No. I was referring to Protestants (also, I have no problem referring to individual Orthodox as Catholics [just as I refer to myself as Orthodox in communion with Rome]- I normally don’t do it in CAF for obvious, practical reasons - this is one of the rare instances I let myself slip ). You asked for proof that Pius XII was a friend of the Orient. His relaxed stance on married clergy within the Western Church shows that he did not have the legalistic attitude towards the matter as other Latin hierarchs.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

He most certainly did not such thing with canon law. The project was nearly completed by Gasparri prior to his retirement, but was shelved by his successor at State. Sure, Pacelli eventually stole some of Gasparri’s work and put it out in bits and pieces under his own name (I think that’s called plagiarism but I digress), but the project of codification was left hanging and not completed until the 1990 CCEO.

It’s a fact that it was in his pontificate and through his efforts that the condification of the existing laws of the non-Latin Churches was completed (with additions). This was done in 1957. Before that time, it was simply popularly assumed that non-Latins were under the same set of Canon laws as the Latins, and Easterns were “allowed” their traditions by the largesse of Latin bishops. The fact that there was now a practical volume of laws recognized by the Magisterial authorities that was different from the Canon law of the Latins was very important. FYI, the CIC Orientalis (full name CIC Orientalis Fontes) is different from the CCEO.

Irrespective of any action or inaction on Rome’s part concerning the much touted “sunset clause” the fact remains that Cum data fuerit is still in force. Ask a JOCD.

I couldn’t care less what Latin propaganda states. The fact is Cum data fuerit was never renewed after 1939. It’s provisions regarding the Sacrament of Confirmation for non-Latin Churches is obviously no longer in effect (and has not been so for a very long time), so I don’t know why there are those who pretend that Cum data fuerit is still in force. As mentioned, the continued existence of the law of celibacy in the traditional Latin jurisdictional territories cannot possibly be due to Cum data fuerit (otherwise, all its provisions would still be in force, which is certainly not true), but due to the collegial authority of the majority of the local hierarchs (who just happen to be Latin). I suspect that certain Latin propagandists still make the claim that Cum data fuerit is still in force to give a pretense that their refusal of a married clergy somehow has some sort of direct papal backing. Non-latins should not give in to that propaganda.

Perhaps some, but to which are you referring?

Sorry, I don’t have the time to get into that much research.

False. I believe that distinction goes to Moran Mor Ignatious Gabriel Tappouni, who was given the red hat by Pius XI in 1935.

You are correct. As I said in another older thread, the matter of the cardinalate is not my strong suit. It’s always good to learn new things. As I researched the matter, it turns out we are both wrong - Pio Nono also gave the red hat to an Eastern - Archbishop Mihail Lewicki, the Metropolitan of Lviv.

In any case…it’s no secret in this forum that I am not, never have been, and never will be, a fan of red hats for Patriarchs.

Yes, that is indeed well-known.

OK fine, but I hardly think any of that was earth-shaking new teaching.

But everyone knew that Mystici Corporis was intended by Pope Pius XII as a commentary on the value of the non-Latin Churches. That is very significant and “earth-shaking,” as far as reforming the attitude of the predominant Latin Church towards the non-Latin Churches,

Oh come on … it’s not that funny. I hardly think that dictatorial power is an improvement.

Sorry. That should have been a :extrahappy:, instead of a . I was simply overjoyed at an example of a Pope actually reducing the power of the curia. I don’t see it as an example of dictatorial power, but as a measure of decentralizing the Church.

Thank you, and with that I’m going to say Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas.

Noting that you ignored the final comment in my earlier post, it seems pointless to continue this volley since we are obviously not going to find agreement here.

Our ENTIRE conversation addressed your final comment. What more did you expect me to say?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

…

For the sake of economy of time, (not to mention my patience ) I’ll address only a few items. The rest … well, let’s just say I’m sticking with what I know.

OK. We’ll definitely have to disagree on that point.

Yes.

My point was (as stated) that Meouchi may not have been as unlikely a candidate for the Patriarchate as you claimed.

When a candidate is not well regarded by many of his peer electors, one wouldn’t expect such a candidate to triumph, would one?

Good for him. The honor of an ecclesiastical office should never be subjugated to the civil power.

This is about the only point where we agree. As much I disliked Meouchi, even I give him credit for that.

I disagree. Every article I’ve read on Lebanon indicates that the Maronite Church was always seen as a firm political as well as moral foundation in the land. …

That was true at one time, that being the time before the rise of the dhimmi faction among the bishops.

Unless explicit facts demonstrate otherwise, I must assume that either Meouchi was “patriarchabili” D) or even if he wasn’t, the Synodal acceptance of the appointment is an indication that (if nothing else) the Synod as a whole felt the appointment was proper (or even necessary) at the time.

Any bishop is patriarchabile.

A sudden influx of about 100,000 Muslim refugees into a primarily Christian country due to the war, a number of immigrants consituting (from what I’ve read) about 10-15% of the total population is not destabilizing? I agree we’ll have to disagree.

If not for the stolen presidential election of 1946, supported by the dhimmi faction in the Synod, that would never have happened either.

I couldn’t care less what Latin propaganda states. The fact is Cum data fuerit was never renewed after 1939.

I’ll say it again: speak with a JOCD about this.

Our ENTIRE conversation addressed your final comment. What more did you expect me to say?

Nothing I guess. :banghead:

Merry Christmas :christmastree1:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So good to see “Peace on Earth” in practice!

S’nami Boh!

 

[GaryTaylor]

So good to see “Peace on Earth” in practice!

S’nami Boh!

Good to see you around.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Good to see you around.

I opted for some “peace”.

A very Merry Christmas to you and your family, Gary!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I opted for some “peace”.

A very Merry Christmas to you and your family, Gary!

Merry Christmas to you and yours also. I think the dialogue here been great of recent though I can understand taking a break.

 

[joe370]

In reality…The preliminary stages. I think we still have a long way to go before we can advance out of this stage.

I just cannot envision the CC ever compromising in the slightest, regarding the Papacy; nor do I see the EOC compromising, therefore I tend to agree with you.

 

[brb3]

And if you use the Catholic argument about the keys to defend infallibility, where is it that the keys were given to the Church and not to Peter himself? No, the keys were given to the person of Peter, not the Church. If infallbility is inherent with the Church and not just the Pope, then every bishop should be able to speak ex cathedra.

a.

This is so true. Christ said " there is one flock, and ONE LEADER".

It began with Peter …and Christ will always provide his replacement !!

Let East & West come together, when Benedict moves on to next life, and jointly propose Papal candidates …and let HS select OUR successor. Then we are unified again under wings of Christ & HS…and soon thereafter, all of Protestantism will rejoin the unified Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Christ said " there is one flock, and ONE LEADER".

 

[brb3]

Sorry, I was quite seriously trying to address your op. There’s no use to do the same things over and over and expect a different result. Ergo: we are nowhere. Does anyone really see any possible resolution? I was quite serious in my proposed solution. And I’d really like to know the answers to my questions:

Is the Eucharist the Eucharist in both churches? Do the Orthodox think we are eating bread and drinking wine? Does the RCC think this of the Orthodox? How is this not the first issue to settle? Once it’s settled, why would anything else be a true impediment?

Maybe we need to do what the Apostles did …in making their first big decision.
They named their choices, drew by lot …and allowed HS to control the outcome.

If we can’t resolve 1500 years of doctrinal conflicts by using faith & reason …then, lets put the issues into the Tabernacle, pray together for a fortnite, and let a baptized virginal child of 7, draw out by lot, the will of HS for Church on each issue of contention.