The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
The Cub, P H, Hardrada, DMP, Kyrie Eleison
5601 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (The Cub, MalpanaGiwargis), 69 guests, and 415 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,726
Posts411,829
Members5,601
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Talon] #405583
05/09/14 09:40 AM
05/09/14 09:40 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,585
Chicago
Michael_Thoma Offline
Member
Michael_Thoma  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,585
Chicago
Originally Posted by Talon
Pardon?

As for horses, who's on the high one, friend? The one who confesses his humanity and seeks to amend his wrongdoings after the fact, or the one who pretends he does no wrong in the first place, and/or who alleges he has the right to be offended in perpetuity, in contrast with Christ's explicit command to do otherwise?

That's the one and only one weak spot of the East - that ugly, uppity, self-righteous sectarian spirit. But for this, it would nigh be Paradise on Earth...Would that the West had so few Achilles heels.
Today's problems, while initiated by the West, is perpetuated by weak-kneed, ignorant, and latinized hierarchs of our own. I suspect if a poll were taken today, a higher number of Latin hierarchs in the USA will, have considered, and actually have ordained married deacons to the priesthood. It's this refusal to go to our own house and clean up the mess that's shameful, because it seems easier in the short term to bask in our sister's extra large backyard and have a pool party. Pretty soon the kids would rather stay with Aunty, and who could blame them?

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Fr. Deacon Lance] #405588
05/09/14 11:11 AM
05/09/14 11:11 AM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 309
Virginia USA
I
Irish_Ruthenian Offline
Member
Irish_Ruthenian  Offline
Member
I

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 309
Virginia USA
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
I have been told by a reliable authority that at the last session of Eastern Catholic hierarchs in Rome, the Holy Father informed the hierarchs that they could ordain married men as they saw fit.


I volunteer to be a guinea pig. I would accept ordination in a heartbeat, even as sinful as I am.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Michael_Thoma] #405590
05/09/14 12:21 PM
05/09/14 12:21 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,440
Connecticut
Job Offline
Cantor
Job  Offline
Cantor
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,440
Connecticut
Christ is Risen!!!

Quote
Today's problems, while initiated by the West, is perpetuated by weak-kneed, ignorant, and latinized hierarchs of our own. I suspect if a poll were taken today, a higher number of Latin hierarchs in the USA will, have considered, and actually have ordained married deacons to the priesthood. It's this refusal to go to our own house and clean up the mess that's shameful,


Glad I read through the entire thread before posting! Well stated. I agree with Stuart (doesn't happen often smile that this has been done for years. (not his arrogant and snarky high horse comments) I remember the UGCC in Canada doing it, what since the 1980's? They had their hands slapped. They ignored it, and continued doing it. If I remember correctly, Rome told the married priests they needed to stop serving and under the leadership of their eparch continued along without missing a beat. And Rome got over it. It has been the "weak-kneed" bishops (Primarily the Rutheinian Heirarchs) who are responsible.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: StuartK] #405594
05/09/14 03:29 PM
05/09/14 03:29 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Upstate New York
D
DMD Offline
Member
DMD  Offline
Member
D

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Upstate New York
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Not from an Orthodox perspective, perhaps, but from a Catholic one, it did. (Certainly not suggesting it was an acceptable idea, just saying that the authority to do so is there.)


So, even though it was a blatant violation of the terms of the Union of Brest, it was OK, because the Pope said it was OK, which means, in effect, the Pope's word is not worth the paper on which it's printed. No wonder the Orthodox are cynical.

Quote
The ban was never, to my knowledge, ignored.


Of course it was. That's why Ea semper had to be followed by Cum data fuerit. The latter, by the way, banned the "importation" of married priests, and one would have to say that the practice of sending married deacons to Eastern Europe or the Middle East for ordination to the presbyterate completely violated the spirit AND the letter of Cum data fuerit. Only the Ruthenians rolled over and played dead, and then because the two schisms had turned having a celibate clergy into a matter of ecclesial identity ("We were obedient--none of our priests are married").

Quote
Does the East ever forgive error, even when it's confessed?


As Father Robert Taft wrote, "Anamnesis, not amnesia".


Bishop Ortynsky had other issues to contend with, like his parishioners beating up on each other as to whether they would be Galician Ruthenians (now Ukrainian Greek Catholics or UOC) or Rusini Ruthenians (now Byzantine Catholic or ACROD). But Stuart, we were taught from our priests' points of view that when Rome sent Bishop Takach he had his orders to comply with the celibacy decrees first and foremost. None of his successors gave serious thought to ordaining married men until the 1990's at the earliest. Was not Bishop Basil's Ukrainian counterpart of that 1920's tasked with the same and again, it was not until the 1980's with their bishops that the topic was broached.

Stuart's premise that the Orthodox can not trust Rome due to what the Orthodox perceive as violations of the unions of Brest and Uzghorod is on point - not only relative to celibacy but as to episcopal election - both being direct assertions of papal supremacy. Parsing the terms of those unions to assert that they only were applicable to the formerly Orthodox subjects and descendants of the secular rulers of east Europe and not in the 'new world' gives those of us in the so-called 'diaspora' little if any comfort.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Talon] #405611
05/10/14 04:30 AM
05/10/14 04:30 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by StuartK
Does it really matter? The Holy See never had the authority to suppress the married priesthood of the Eastern Churches in the first place.


Not from an Orthodox perspective, perhaps, but from a Catholic one, it did. (Certainly not suggesting it was an acceptable idea, just saying that the authority to do so is there.)

Technically, brother Stuart's statement is true. Bishops have the highest say in their diocese. Look at your own Latin Canon laws. Bishops, for the good of their flock, can grant dispensations even from universal laws and laws established by the Pope. As others have noted, it is really our own non-Latin bishops that have kept the force of Cum data fuerit extant, if perhaps for sake of peace in a predominantly Latin territory. I don't agree with the "weak-kneed" comment on our bishops - wanting to keep the peace with the local Latin Church is not "weak-kneed" IMHO, but shows strength of resolve. Though I agree it is nigh past time for our bishops to claim their prerogatives in this regard. I forget which Pope was involved in the following incident in the early 20th century, but an Eastern bishop had asked the Pope for permission to do something in the U.S., and the Pope's only response was "exercise your authority." I think brother Alex knows the answer (and he has given it to me in the past, but I keep forgetting the names of the hierarchs involved).

Quote
Quote
As the ban has long been circumvented or ignored, we can take it as having lapsed in fact if not in law--it has passed into desuetude,


The ban was never, to my knowledge, ignored. We're talking strictly about the eastern Catholic Churches in the United States, not anywhere else.

The fact is that cum data fuerit was never an absolute ban on a married priesthood. It was intentionally couched in language that indicated its temporary nature "according to the times" (which, btw, the local Latin hierarchs did not appreciate at all). In fact, the Pope himself granted local dispensations from cum data fuerit for about 6 years after the fact.

IMO, the enforcement of Cum Data fuerit depended more on a humble exercise of oikonomia by the Eastern hierarchs rather than an exercise of Roman power - in fact, it was not an exercise of Roman power, but a concession to the authority of the local Latin hierarchy.

Blessings

Last edited by mardukm; 05/10/14 04:32 AM.
Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: DMD] #405612
05/10/14 04:47 AM
05/10/14 04:47 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Dear brother DMD,

I agree with the comment on episcopal elections, but not with the comment on celibacy. The celibacy matter was forced by the LOCAL Latin hierarchy, not the Pope. The Pope himself began attempting to circumvent the absolute power of the local Latin hierarchy by giving the Easterns their own bishop in the traditionally Latin Catholic territory of the U.S. Further, he was granting individual dispensations from Cum data fuerit as well.

As far as episcopal elections, though I agree that papal involvement is an indication of papal supremacy, it is not actually evidence of supremacy in relation to the local hierarchy, but in relation to the secular State. The papal involvement (known as a "papal assent") has it roots from the Pope's constant attempt to ensure the independence of the Church from the secular power - borne of a time when the secular power had a powerful say in who and who was not elected a bishop. The purpose of the "papal assent" was to ensure that the local episcopal election was not unduly influenced by the secular power. That was the original intent of it. It is nowadays wrongly interpreted to be a diminution of patriarchal authority.

In truth, in relation to the local ecclesiastical power, it is only a rubber stamp. It's main effect is to be a safeguard against the interference of the SECULAR power. Further proof that it is not a diminution of patriarchal authority is that a non-Latin Church's bishops are consecrated and confirmed by its supreme head bishop/Synod, not by the Pope of Rome.

The papal assent, as far as ecclesiastical politics is concerned, is tantamount to a nomination (which is what it was still called back in the 19th century). But the head bishop of the non-Latin Church still had the final say in whether or not to consecrate/confirm the papal nominations.

Blessings

Originally Posted by DMD
Stuart's premise that the Orthodox can not trust Rome due to what the Orthodox perceive as violations of the unions of Brest and Uzghorod is on point - not only relative to celibacy but as to episcopal election - both being direct assertions of papal supremacy. Parsing the terms of those unions to assert that they only were applicable to the formerly Orthodox subjects and descendants of the secular rulers of east Europe and not in the 'new world' gives those of us in the so-called 'diaspora' little if any comfort.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Little Green Coat] #405613
05/10/14 05:02 AM
05/10/14 05:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
OH, and one other thing. Cum data fuerit was supposed to be periodically renewed. It was renewed in 1939, but never renewed in 1949. I don't know why I keep reading about it as the legal basis for the "ban" on married priests. The real legal basis for the "ban" is the common law of LOCAL Latin Churches, not Cum Data Fuerit. I believe certain Latin commentators like to cite Cum Data Fuerit because it is a given, in Latin Catholic territories, that local Episcopal Conferences don't have the ordinary executive and legislative power that Oriental and Eastern Synods possess for their own respective territories. The common law of local Latin episcopal conferences can "legally" be ignored by non-Latin hierarchs, and Cum Data Fuerit is (perhaps to local Latin authorities) the only thing keeping married priests "at bay." Appeal to Cum data fuerit is a pernicious legal fiction. It is really the divine Law of Charity that prevents non-Latin hierarchs from circumventing the common law of the predominantly local Latin hierarchy.

However, I believe the Pope VERY recently formally and explicitly gave local episcopal conferences the canonical right to determine the existence of married priests in their lands.

Last edited by mardukm; 05/10/14 05:06 AM.
Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: mardukm] #405630
05/10/14 03:09 PM
05/10/14 03:09 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Washington state - Go Hawks!!!
T
Talon Offline
Member
Talon  Offline
Member
T

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Washington state - Go Hawks!!!
Originally Posted by mardukm

Technically, brother Stuart's statement is true. Bishops have the highest say in their diocese. Look at your own Latin Canon laws. Bishops, for the good of their flock, can grant dispensations even from universal laws and laws established by the Pope.


Brother, if that were true across the board, the way you imply, there would presently be no East-West schism, no? (Where would the bone of contention be if that's the way the Catholic Church really operated?)

What you say is conditionally true. In other words, the bishop is president of his own diocese, second to no other, yes...except the Holy Father, when and where the Holy Father chooses to intervene.

Thus, the local bishop can grant dispensations from laws such as the one mandating abstention from meat during Lent. But not all laws in the Church are subject to his prerogative, and I can't, at present, summon to mind a single example of a bishop licitly contravening something the pope has decreed authoritatively. Can you?

By the way, thank you for the clarification a few posts up. I have not yet been able to read Cum Data Fuerit carefully, but the little that I did catch gave me a very different impression of its actual intent and impact than what I've seen represented here thus far by some, shall we say "unwitting" Easterners. I appreciate the balance from someone who is not Roman Catholic.

Last edited by Talon; 05/10/14 03:20 PM.
Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Talon] #405637
05/10/14 05:40 PM
05/10/14 05:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by mardukm

Technically, brother Stuart's statement is true. Bishops have the highest say in their diocese. Look at your own Latin Canon laws. Bishops, for the good of their flock, can grant dispensations even from universal laws and laws established by the Pope.


Brother, if that were true across the board, the way you imply, there would presently be no East-West schism, no? (Where would the bone of contention be if that's the way the Catholic Church really operated?)

Well, there's several reasons for the schism. On the ecclesiological level, I seriously believe the Catholic teaching on the papacy has been mischaracterized by both Catholics, "non-"Catholics (i.e., Orthodox), and non-Catholics alike. The official teaching of V1 on the papacy according to the Relatios of Bishop Gasser (on the infallibility) and Bishop Zinelli (on the primacy) reveals a very different picture than what you often hear from Absolutist Petrine advocates (both within the Catholic Church and without - i.e., the SSPX and other Traditionalist groups that have schismed from the CC).

Quote
What you say is conditionally true. In other words, the bishop is president of his own diocese, second to no other, yes...except the Holy Father, when and where the Holy Father chooses to intervene.

AFAIK, the Pope of Rome intervenes only in response to the needs of the local Church. He doesn't have the authority to create a problem in a local Church if there is none to begin with. The Pope has no authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox bishop in his own diocese. If you feel the Pope can, please cite a Magisterial document that states he can.

Quote
Thus, the local bishop can grant dispensations from laws such as the one mandating abstention from meat during Lent. But not all laws in the Church are subject to his prerogative, and I can't, at present, summon to mind a single example of a bishop licitly contravening something the pope has decreed authoritatively. Can you?

I can give a few. Non-latin bishops have been ordaining married men to the priesthood in the traditional Latin territories since the 198o's, even without explicit papal approval.

In the late 19th century, Patriarch Audu of the Chaldeans refused to consecrate some bishops nominated by Pio Nono. At one point, Pio Nono even threatened deposition. But nothing came of it. Even Pio Nono knew the limits of what he could and could not do. One cannot downplay the inherent limitation that is placed on the Pope of Rome by virtue of his divine obligation as the primary keeper of the peace and unity of the Church. The Pope's authority is limited by both Divine law and the Divine constitution of the Church (per the CDF). Pope St. JP2 also explicitly stated that he does not have the authority to impede the jurisdiction of a local bishop.

Again, read your Canon Law.

Quote
By the way, thank you for the clarification a few posts up. I have not yet been able to read Cum Data Fuerit carefully, but the little that I did catch gave me a very different impression of its actual intent and impact than what I've seen represented here thus far by some, shall we say "unwitting" Easterners. I appreciate the balance from someone who is not Roman Catholic.

The married priests issue is a very sensitive one for Easterns. Though the Oriental Churches are also affected by it, we did not feel the direct repercussions of the events that caused painful schisms in the Eastern Catholic world due to the poor judgment of Archbishop Ireland. I think there is a lot more emotion attached to the matter for an Eastern Catholic than for an Oriental Catholic. IMO, that certain degree of aloofness allows me to assess the matter in a different light than an Eastern Catholic would.

Blessings

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Talon] #405638
05/10/14 05:53 PM
05/10/14 05:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,283
Texas
Athanasius The L Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Athanasius The L  Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,283
Texas
Please help us poor, unwitting Easterners understand the true intent and impact of Cum Data Fuerit.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Little Green Coat] #405639
05/10/14 06:33 PM
05/10/14 06:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 88
USA
P
Pasisozi Offline
Member
Pasisozi  Offline
Member
P

Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 88
USA
Ea semper ("We've always done it that way")--the Papal bull that established American Orthodoxy.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Athanasius The L] #405641
05/10/14 11:01 PM
05/10/14 11:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Please help us poor, unwitting Easterners understand the true intent and impact of Cum Data Fuerit.

Cum data fuerit, from what I've read and heard from Easterns (both Catholic and Orthodox), is often viewed as the Pope of Rome violating prior Treaties/promises.

When I first studied the matter (before I became Catholic), I saw it as a pastoral solution, not an imposition of authority. The Pope was not the one who forbade married priests in the U.S. That was ALREADY happening BEFORE Ea semper and Cum data fuerit were promulgated. I saw those papal actions as a way for the Pope to gradually introduce the autonomy of the Eastern Catholics in a Latin territorial jurisdiction. What I saw was 3 things the Pope did that went against the current in the traditionally Latin-dominated land:
(1) He gave the Easterns their own bishop (an important first step) - otherwise the Eastern Catholic Churches would not exist at all in the U.S. or in any Western lands - Easterns would simply be under the omophor of the local Latin bishops (per traditional Church polity). The Popes of Rome set a worthy canonical precedent for the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Oriental Catholic Churches as well, by doing this.
(2) The acts established the temporary nature of the ban on married priests. This was not at all to the liking of perhaps 99& of the Latin bishops in the U.S. (there was one Latin bishop I read about - I forget his name or diocese - who was welcoming of married Eastern priests).
(3) The Pope himself gave individual dispensations from the Ea semper and Cum data fuerit, which allowed some Eastern parishes and communities to have married priests.

Blessings

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Talon] #405646
05/11/14 12:26 AM
05/11/14 12:26 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Originally Posted by Talon
Thus, the local bishop can grant dispensations from laws such as the one mandating abstention from meat during Lent. But not all laws in the Church are subject to his prerogative, and I can't, at present, summon to mind a single example of a bishop licitly contravening something the pope has decreed authoritatively. Can you?

Another one often overlooked is the praxis of local glorifications, even in Latin dioceses.

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: mardukm] #405647
05/11/14 01:46 AM
05/11/14 01:46 AM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Washington state - Go Hawks!!!
T
Talon Offline
Member
Talon  Offline
Member
T

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Washington state - Go Hawks!!!
Originally Posted by Talon

What you say is conditionally true. In other words, the bishop is president of his own diocese, second to no other, yes...except the Holy Father, when and where the Holy Father chooses to intervene.


Originally Posted by Mardukm

AFAIK, the Pope of Rome intervenes only in response to the needs of the local Church. He doesn't have the authority to create a problem in a local Church if there is none to begin with.


...That was a rather peculiar way to say it. confused

No, the pope should never be "causing problems" for anyone...On that, we certainly agree. wink

Originally Posted by Mardukm

The Pope has no authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox bishop in his own diocese. If you feel the Pope can, please cite a Magisterial document that states he can.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

By the way, "orthodox" bishop, or "Orthodox" bishop?

Originally Posted by Talon
Thus, the local bishop can grant dispensations from laws such as the one mandating abstention from meat during Lent. But not all laws in the Church are subject to his prerogative, and I can't, at present, summon to mind a single example of a bishop licitly contravening something the pope has decreed authoritatively. Can you?

Originally Posted by Mardukm

I can give a few. Non-latin bishops have been ordaining married men to the priesthood in the traditional Latin territories since the 198o's, even without explicit papal approval.


Are you talking about in the United States? If so, I said licitly. If not, how does this demonstrate that a local bishop can contravene an order from the pope?

Quote

In the late 19th century, Patriarch Audu of the Chaldeans refused to consecrate some bishops nominated by Pio Nono. At one point, Pio Nono even threatened deposition. But nothing came of it. Even Pio Nono knew the limits of what he could and could not do.


I'm not at all familiar with this situation, so it would do no good for me to even try to comment on it.

Originally Posted by Mardukm

Pope St. JP2 also explicitly stated that he does not have the authority to impede the jurisdiction of a local bishop.


See his papal audience above.

Quote

Again, read your Canon Law.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

???

Re: Married Priesthood in US ? [Re: Talon] #405649
05/11/14 02:21 AM
05/11/14 02:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
M
mardukm Offline
Member
mardukm  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Philippines
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by Talon

What you say is conditionally true. In other words, the bishop is president of his own diocese, second to no other, yes...except the Holy Father, when and where the Holy Father chooses to intervene.


Originally Posted by Mardukm

AFAIK, the Pope of Rome intervenes only in response to the needs of the local Church. He doesn't have the authority to create a problem in a local Church if there is none to begin with.


...That was a rather peculiar way to say it. confused

No, the pope should never be "causing problems" for anyone...On that, we certainly agree. wink

There are some (and I've debated them at CAF) who feel that the Pope has the power to unilaterally get rid of the Divine Liturgies of the Oriental and Eastern Churches. I do not believe he does, and there is no Magisterial document to support such a gross opinion.


Quote
Originally Posted by Mardukm

The Pope has no authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox bishop in his own diocese. If you feel the Pope can, please cite a Magisterial document that states he can.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

Yes, a solid appraisal of the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church, not the Absolutist Petrine aberrations that is promoted by many. To highlight:
Vatican I's definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. The Council expressly states: "This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors..." (DS 3061).

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: "The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them." The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them "episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction"; that the Pope "is taking for himself the place of every bishop"; and that the bishops are merely "instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own" (DS 3115).

This limitation on the papal prerogatives due to the divine constitution of the Church was repeated by the Swiss bishops' conference, with the explicit approval of Pio Nono. It has also recently been taught by the CDF in a statement on the primacy.

Quote
By the way, "orthodox" bishop, or "Orthodox" bishop?

Doesn't really matter. wink

Quote
Originally Posted by Talon
Thus, the local bishop can grant dispensations from laws such as the one mandating abstention from meat during Lent. But not all laws in the Church are subject to his prerogative, and I can't, at present, summon to mind a single example of a bishop licitly contravening something the pope has decreed authoritatively. Can you?

Originally Posted by Mardukm

I can give a few. Non-latin bishops have been ordaining married men to the priesthood in the traditional Latin territories since the 198o's, even without explicit papal approval.


Are you talking about in the United States? If so, I said licitly.

The actions of the Eastern hierarchs were licit. As stated, the common law of local episcopal conferences against celibacy at that time did not have any juridical force (it would be different for an Eastern or Oriental Synod). And Cum data fuerit expired back in 1949. The only thing legally preventing the ordination of married priests in the U.S. and Canada was the decision of the local non-Latin hierarch.

Quote
If not, how does this demonstrate that a local bishop can contravene an order from the pope?

To use your words, "that's a strange way to put it." It is within a bishop's right, for the genuine good of his flock, to grant dispensations from patriarchal and universal laws, even laws given motu proprio. If a bishop does it for the good of his flock, why would that be "contravening" the Pope? Do you mean to imply that the Pope of Rome does not have the good of the local flock in mind, as well?

Quote
Quote
In the late 19th century, Patriarch Audu of the Chaldeans refused to consecrate some bishops nominated by Pio Nono. At one point, Pio Nono even threatened deposition. But nothing came of it. Even Pio Nono knew the limits of what he could and could not do.

I'm not at all familiar with this situation, so it would do no good for me to even try to comment on it.

The point is that bishops have "contravened" the will of the Pope for the good of their flock, and they have always had the right to do so. Patriarch Audu was aware of the turmoil that his consecration/confirmation of Latin-appointed (i.e., nominated) bishops would cause for his Church. So he chose not to do so. A good head bishop of the Church universal will bend like a reed if necessary - because the primacy is for service, not for domination. Some good examples in history of the Pope humbly submitting to correction are Pope St. Victor's relenting on his excommunication of the Asian Churches, and Pope Vigilius' eventual condemnation of the 3 chapters.

Quote
Originally Posted by Mardukm

Pope St. JP2 also explicitly stated that he does not have the authority to impede the jurisdiction of a local bishop.

See his papal audience above.

Which supports what I have been saying.

Blessings

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1
(Release build 20190129)
PHP: 7.1.32 Page Time: 0.029s Queries: 15 (0.009s) Memory: 2.6600 MB (Peak: 2.7885 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2019-09-18 20:02:12 UTC