Vatican overturns Chaldean Patriarch's suspension of priests who fled Islamic State

[ProdglArchitect]

I did not say that the pope did this, and especially I did not say that pope Franciscus did this. But in the last centuries, the popes turned into some kind of god in the church.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. The pope maintains the same role he has always had in the Church, it’s leader, and through the Holy Spirit, its guide. There has not been any substantial shift in the past century, in fact, the last big change was when the Pope shifted out of the role of temporal governance back when the Papal States was dissolved.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t think the Pope is considered the Patriarch’s religious superior. I think it is a matter of process. Disciplinary actions in the Church generally include a right to appeal. In this case, the appeal is made to the Vatican.

Doesn’t that make the Holy Father his religious superior, or is this one of those “it’s really complicated for those who haven’t studied it” cases of how the Church is structured?

 

[Seraphim73]

I ask you the same question I asked Seraphim. I fully agree that Rome has barged in, in times past, when it shouldn’t have and that Rome needs to allow the Eastern Churches to govern their own affairs. That being said, will we now deprive Eastern Catholics of the ancient right to appeal to Rome? The practice of appealing to Rome is not some modern novelty. If papal primacy cannot be exercised even in the case of an appeal, then it is definitively nothing more than the primacy of honor espoused by some Orthodox.

To whom do Latin bishops appeal when the pope makes an error in judgment?

 

[Seraphim73]

Sorry for posting a news story and forgetting the link.

Vatican overturns Chaldean Patriarch’s suspension of priests who fled Islamic State

 

[Seraphim73]

If the Pope of Rome had barged in I would agree. That was not the case. As I understand the situation, the Chaldean bishop in the US appealed to Rome on behalf of these priests. Would you deprive the Chaldean bishop a privilege the bishops of the ancient Church had prior to the Great Schism? Rome barging in would be an abuse of papal primacy, but the canons and practice of the ancient undivided Church always supported the right to APPEAL to Rome (or any higher authority).

Actually the right of appeal belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but that’s really beside the point. First the issue was heard by the synod. Did the Chaldean synod hear the case?

 

[Nestor_kea]

I would like to see some source and to know what exactly was ruled. It is quite a difference

• if Pope overruled and abolished the entire Patriarch’s decision,
• if Pope overruled or changed it just “partially”,
• if Pope did not overrule anything and just said yes to one specific request.
  What’s more in case of dispute between homeland and diaspora bishop, the Apostolic See is quite often the appropriate office to make decision, not the patriarchal level.

As I understood the original Patriarch’s action, it was meant to return priests to their parishes / parishioners – meaning to pull back priests who left their people who are now without priest, not to punish those who were leaving together with their parishioners. And also to make priests to communicate with their bishops and to give some tool to bishops to control their priests. I think it is normal if bishop approves or disapproves his priest’s “movings”, especially if the priest goes out of his jurisdiction.

Also many depends on the way it was exercised:

• If the whole village leaves (their priest with them) and he informs his bishop that all left, I would consider it OK. They could escape to another’s bishop jurisdiction and then this would be matter of both bishops. Priest’s bishop can tell him he needs him somewhere else (or just wants him back in his eparchy) and his parishioners will be given another priest and so on.
• I would see the original decision to be a problem if it were exercised in a way of punishing priests whose fault was not to stay somewhere in ruins of their village with no parishioner left.

It is also possible that many possibilities were not covered or some were simply “forgotten” and reality has shown that it was not the best written law and this imperfection is now causing some problems.

I would really like to now how it was implemented in praxis and what exactly was that Pope’s intervention about.

 

[malphono]

I ask you the same question I asked Seraphim. I fully agree that Rome has barged in, in times past, when it shouldn’t have and that Rome needs to allow the Eastern Churches to govern their own affairs. That being said, will we now deprive Eastern Catholics of the ancient right to appeal to Rome? The practice of appealing to Rome is not some modern novelty. If papal primacy cannot be exercised even in the case of an appeal, then it is definitively nothing more than the primacy of honor espoused by some Orthodox.

Well yes, an appeal to Rome is not a modern novelty, but this matter concerns an INTERNAL disciplinary issue. Should the appeal in this case not have been made to the Holy Synod?

EDIT: I hadn’t seen Seraphim’s comment when I made this post.

 

[Jon_S_1]

To whom do Latin bishops appeal when the pope makes an error in judgment?

To whom do your priests appeal, when their Patriarch makes an error in judgement…

At some point…there is a final arbiter. The Holy Spirit protects the Church in this. By faith we accept it.

If the Holy Spirit can work through a bunch of bickering bishops in a council, he can work through the successor of Peter…Perhaps you think the Holy Spirit incapable of such action?

 

[Corki]

Doesn’t that make the Holy Father his religious superior, or is this one of those “it’s really complicated for those who haven’t studied it” cases of how the Church is structured?

Not necessarily. I was thinking of a case within the Latin Church. If a priest disagreed with a disciplinary action of his Bishop, he could appeal to one of the Congregations within the Vatican, such as the Congregation for the Clergy or the CDW. If the Congregation issued a decision, that doesn’t mean that anyone in the Congregation is that Bishop’s religious superior. It only means that they have the authority to hear and act on appeals.

And yes, it does get a little more complicated when you are discussing the junction of East and West.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Not necessarily. I was thinking of a case within the Latin Church. If a priest disagreed with a disciplinary action of his Bishop, he could appeal to one of the Congregations within the Vatican, such as the Congregation for the Clergy or the CDW. If the Congregation issued a decision, that doesn’t mean that anyone in the Congregation is that Bishop’s religious superior. It only means that they have the authority to hear and act on appeals.

And yes, it does get a little more complicated when you are discussing the junction of East and West.

Thank you for explaining it to me.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I would like to see some source and to know what exactly was ruled. It is quite a difference

• if Pope overruled and abolished the entire Patriarch’s decision,
• if Pope overruled or changed it just “partially”,
• if Pope did not overrule anything and just said yes to one specific request.
  What’s more in case of dispute between homeland and diaspora bishop, the Apostolic See is quite often the appropriate office to make decision, not the patriarchal level.

As I understood the original Patriarch’s action, it was meant to return priests to their parishes / parishioners – meaning to pull back priests who left their people who are now without priest, not to punish those who were leaving together with their parishioners. And also to make priests to communicate with their bishops and to give some tool to bishops to control their priests. I think it is normal if bishop approves or disapproves his priest’s “movings”, especially if the priest goes out of his jurisdiction.

Also many depends on the way it was exercised:

• If the whole village leaves (their priest with them) and he informs his bishop that all left, I would consider it OK. They could escape to another’s bishop jurisdiction and then this would be matter of both bishops. Priest’s bishop can tell him he needs him somewhere else (or just wants him back in his eparchy) and his parishioners will be given another priest and so on.
• I would see the original decision to be a problem if it were exercised in a way of punishing priests whose fault was not to stay somewhere in ruins of their village with no parishioner left.

It is also possible that many possibilities were not covered or some were simply “forgotten” and reality has shown that it was not the best written law and this imperfection is now causing some problems.

I would really like to now how it was implemented in praxis and what exactly was that Pope’s intervention about.

Remember too that this is not the case of a priest that is just AWOL. Nor did they flee in the last year.

These priests have been in the US for decades, shepherding the faithful Chaldeans that are outside Iraq.

The priests are US Citizens, and were here doing the work of the Patriarch. The Patriarch feels that all Chaldeans should return to Iraq…perhaps he feels that they should all go extinct together…I don’t know, but I am sure there are some legitimate concerns about recalling every Chaldean priest in the world into a war zone.

sandiego6.com/news/local/Chaldean-Patriarch-of-Iraq-defies-Pope-and-orders-local-Chaldean-priests-back-to-Iraq-288358501.html

 

[Nestor_kea]

Remember too that this is not the case of a priest that is just AWOL. Nor did they flee in the last year.

These priests have been in the US for decades, shepherding the faithful Chaldeans that are outside Iraq.

The priests are US Citizens, and were here doing the work of the Patriarch. The Patriarch feels that all Chaldeans should return to Iraq…perhaps he feels that they should all go extinct together…I don’t know, but I am sure there are some legitimate concerns about recalling every Chaldean priest in the world into a war zone.

sandiego6.com/news/local/Chaldean-Patriarch-of-Iraq-defies-Pope-and-orders-local-Chaldean-priests-back-to-Iraq-288358501.html

Thanks for article and additionally explanation. It was helpful.

I certainly agree that Chaldean priests should not go to ISIS just to get killed. On the other hand I don’t think they should leave Iraq without permision just because it is dangerous or even just because it fits them better. They should be allowed to escape danger but not to do anything what they want (I mean “escape” from bishop as well). If this would have been general rule, (ex-)communist countries etc. had had nearly no priests at all. Noone wanted them to get martyred under communist regimes but when they became priests, they offered their lives to God and lose life “in service” is just a risk of a priestly job, anyhow cruel it may sound.

In case of priests fleeding ISIS I would tend to be benevolent in a way. But if someone has been for ten years in the USA and still does not have his “issues” solved, it is hardly OK. Well, I don’t dare to generalize to every case.

 

[Seraphim73]

To whom do your priests appeal, when their Patriarch makes an error in judgement…

At some point…there is a final arbiter. The Holy Spirit protects the Church in this. By faith we accept it.

If the Holy Spirit can work through a bunch of bickering bishops in a council, he can work through the successor of Peter…Perhaps you think the Holy Spirit incapable of such action?

The only way a priest would have an issue with the patriarch is if the patriarch were their bishop. If that happened they would have recourse to the holy synod.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The only way a priest would have an issue with the patriarch is if the patriarch were their bishop. If that happened they would have recourse to the holy synod.

What do they do when the Holy Synod gets it wrong…??

 

[Seraphim73]

What do they do when the Holy Synod gets it wrong…??

Tough luck. Offer it up to God.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Tough luck. Offer it up to God.

Why is that outcome acceptable to you, but not acceptable for Catholics in regard to the Pope?

you wrote, “to whom do the latin bishops appeal when the Pope makes an error in judgment”

You appear ok with the hierarchy making errors and say “tough luck” at some point, so I don’t see why it makes any difference if that last step is the Holy Synod, or the Pope.

 

[twf]

Actually the right of appeal belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but that’s really beside the point. First the issue was heard by the synod. Did the Chaldean synod hear the case?

Chalcedon granted Constantinople the right of appeal, but that didn’t take away the fact that there was, by ancient tradition, a right of appeal to Rome as well. I’m not even sure if appeals to Constantinople applied outside of the Byzantine / Roman Empire.
I honestly don’t know if the Chaldean Synod heard the case, but I would agree with you that it should have gone before the Synod first. Unless the Patriarch’s ruling itself was a decree of the Synod in which case the only recourse would be an appeal to Rome. There are certainly issues with the existing protocols in regards to Eastern autonomy - I don’t deny that - but I do stand by the basic principle of appeals to Rome as a last resort.

 

[twf]

Well yes, an appeal to Rome is not a modern novelty, but this matter concerns an INTERNAL disciplinary issue. Should the appeal in this case not have been made to the Holy Synod?

EDIT: I hadn’t seen Seraphim’s comment when I made this post.

I would agree that it should have gone to the Holy Synod first if that wasn’t the case. Appeals to Rome should be the last resort. I believe true synodal authority should be exercised at all levels, even within the Latin Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

Why is that outcome acceptable to you, but not acceptable for Catholics in regard to the Pope?

you wrote, “to whom do the latin bishops appeal when the Pope makes an error in judgment”

You appear ok with the hierarchy making errors and say “tough luck” at some point, so I don’t see why it makes any difference if that last step is the Holy Synod, or the Pope.

Because it is being decided by their own bishops, not the bishops of another Church. And anyone can make errors. But the final authority is the bishop unless that bishop violates a canon enacted by the Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Because it is being decided by their own bishops, not the bishops of another Church. And anyone can make errors. But the final authority is the bishop unless that bishop violates a canon enacted by the Church.

There is one church. The Chaldeans are part of the Catholic Church. They appealed to The Bishop of Rome as the arbiter of their church.