www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope Benedict has nuanced his stand on Eastern Orthodoxy

I believe your pov is based on a misunderstanding of the Vatican 1 Decree on the Primacy. As explained in the other thread, though the Pope has "ordinary" and "immediate" jurisdiction in every diocese, though the Patriarch or Metropolitan has "ordinary" jurisdiction in every diocese within their jurisdiction, none of these head bishops has "proper" jurisdiction in any local diocese outside their own. What occurred in the debacle with Fr. Alexis Toth was not that the Pope imposed something on the Eastern Catholics in the U.S. According to the Vatican 1 Decree on the Primacy, the Pope does not have the authority to impede the divinely-given authority of the local bishop. Every Latin bishop in North America did not want married priests in their territory. What could the Pope do? Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates, sharing the same misunderstanding of the Vatican teaching, yet with different objectives, thinking that the Pope has proper control over every individual diocese in the Church would erroneously place all responsibility for the incident on the Pope's shoulders. In fact, the Pope's authority was not used to impose mandatory celibacy on the Easterns. Rather, it was the authority of the local bishops that was the decisive factor. So what role did the Pope have in this incident? He used his authority to do the following:
(1) He promulgated Ea Semper with language that made the prohibition of married priests dependent on the circumstances of the times, so that there would not be an absolute bar on married Eastern priests in North American in the future. This did not go ever well with the local Latin bishops.
(2) He gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territorial jurisdiction of local Latin bishops. This especially did not go over well with the local Latin bishops.
(3) By indult, bypassing the local laws of the local bishops, he permitted several married Eastern priests to serve in the U.S. Needless to say, this also did not go oever well with the local Latin bishops.
The Pope did as much as he could do for the Easterns given the circumstances. I don't know why the Pope is being vilified for the situation. The responsibility rested squarely with the local Latin bishops.

Well, I don't blame them completely, but I do believe they are partly to blame for the situation. I guess you are not aware of the many changes that were made to the original draft of the Vatican 1 Decrees as a result of the solicitude of the Minority bishops (as well as many of the Majority bishops). It could have turned out differently if the Orthodox participated. Perhaps the Absolutist Petrine excesses would not even exist today if the Orthodox participated.

Dear brother DTBrown,

I believe your pov is based on a misunderstanding of the Vatican 1 Decree on the Primacy. As explained in the other thread, though the Pope has "ordinary" and "immediate" jurisdiction in every diocese, though the Patriarch or Metropolitan has "ordinary" jurisdiction in every diocese within their jurisdiction, none of these head bishops has "proper" jurisdiction in any local diocese outside their own. What occurred in the debacle with Fr. Alexis Toth was not that the Pope imposed something on the Eastern Catholics in the U.S. According to the Vatican 1 Decree on the Primacy, the Pope does not have the authority to impede the divinely-given authority of the local bishop. Every Latin bishop in North America did not want married priests in their territory. What could the Pope do? Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates, sharing the same misunderstanding of the Vatican teaching, yet with different objectives, thinking that the Pope has proper control over every individual diocese in the Church would erroneously place all responsibility for the incident on the Pope's shoulders. In fact, the Pope's authority was not used to impose mandatory celibacy on the Easterns. Rather, it was the authority of the local bishops that was the decisive factor. So what role did the Pope have in this incident? He used his authority to do the following:
(1) He promulgated Ea Semper with language that made the prohibition of married priests dependent on the circumstances of the times, so that there would not be an absolute bar on married Eastern priests in North American in the future. This did not go ever well with the local Latin bishops.
(2) He gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territorial jurisdiction of local Latin bishops. This especially did not go over well with the local Latin bishops.
(3) By indult, bypassing the local laws of the local bishops, he permitted several married Eastern priests to serve in the U.S. Needless to say, this also did not go oever well with the local Latin bishops.
The Pope did as much as he could do for the Easterns given the circumstances. I don't know why the Pope is being vilified for the situation. The responsibility rested squarely with the local Latin bishops.

So the incident with Fr. Toth is a very poor example of the Pope having control over the Eastern Churches. In fact, the effective authority in that incident was the authority of the local Latin bishops, not the Pope's.

Well, I don't blame them completely, but I do believe they are partly to blame for the situation. I guess you are not aware of the many changes that were made to the original draft of the Vatican 1 Decrees as a result of the solicitude of the Minority bishops (as well as many of the Majority bishops). It could have turned out differently if the Orthodox participated. Perhaps the Absolutist Petrine excesses would not even exist today if the Orthodox participated.

Actually, for example, the very title of the Decree was changed from "The Infallibility of the Pope" to "The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope." And the Canon on Pastor Aeternus was modified from its original draft to indicate that the Infallibility exercised by the Pope is actually one and the same the infallibility of the Church. "Papal infallibility" is a colloquial misnomer. It is actually the Magisterium which is infallible, the Magisterium being defined as the teaching authority of God. With this understanding in mind, it is evident that infallibility is not ever exercised by the Pope alone, since the Magisterium does not and never belongs to the Pope alone. Currently at CAF, I have been debating a Latin Catholic of the Absolutist Petrine view who believes that an Ecumenical Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible (i.e., by his confirmation, it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility). That position is a fantasy which is not supported by any teaching of the Catholic Church. It's an interesting debate. You should take a look if you have the time (I'll give you a link if you're interested).

Blessings,
Marduk

With this understanding in mind, it is evident that infallibility is not ever exercised by the Pope alone, since the Magisterium does not and never belongs to the Pope alone.

I'll go one step further.

To argue that the Pope had no real control over the imposition of celibacy on the Eastern Catholic Churches in the last two centuries and that the blame should be placed totally on the Latin Rite Bishops and that the Pope should be exonerated of any blame is revisionist history and could be an impediment to possible reunion.

There are too many children of those times who remember what really happened.

One can start with Fr. Slivka's Historical Mirror [archive.org] for starters to read contemporary coverage.

Or, when he set up the independent jurisdictions the Pope could have then said the Latin Rite Bishops needed to learn something about "the equal dignity" of East and West.

Which is why I made it clear in my next post that I reject the infallibility of the pope's teaching office as a public person. The pope cannot teach infallibly at all. In other words, there is no special charism of infallibility associated with the person (public or private) of the pope or with his teaching office. As Pope Adrian VI said: "If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment" (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Defensio declarationis Conventüs cleri gallicani, page 29, section 28).

I don't take issue at all with Pope Adrian's statement that the Pope can err. But it still leaves open the possibility that the Pope can exercise infallibility at times.

Alright, I can see what you're saying. Still, reading that paragraph together with the ones preceding it, I don't think he meant that "in former times ... people accepted whatever a pope said without a second thought, no matter how puzzling the statement may be", or anything quite as radical as that. And anyhow, I think his main point was that dogmatically defining "Papal Infallibility" was a very silly thing to do. (BTW, I should have mentioned before that TheWhim is Protestant, according to his CAF profile.)

It is important to remember that even Pope Leo's Tome, which was perhaps the most important papal document of the first millennium, was not simply accepted by the Fathers at Chalcedon. As the acts of the council make clear, it (i.e., the Tome) first was sent to a committee of bishops who studied what it said comparing it diligently to the writings of St. Cyril, and only after it was found that Leo's Tome agreed with St. Cyril was it accepted as Orthodox, and even then it was not accepted as the Council's dogmatic decree. The Council Fathers decided, as we all know, to write a separate decree which represented the official teaching of the Synod.

Still, Jalland's scholarship is a corrective to those who think that Pope St. Leo viewed his office as just a regular Bishop.

It is important to remember that even Pope St. Leo's Tome, which was perhaps the most important papal document of the first millennium, was not simply accepted by the Fathers at Chalcedon. As the acts of the council make clear, it (i.e., the Tome) was first sent to a committee of bishops who studied what it said comparing it diligently to the writings of St. Cyril, and only after it was found that St. Leo's Tome agreed with St. Cyril was it accepted as Orthodox, and even then it was not accepted as the Council's dogmatic decree. The Council Fathers decided, as we all know, to write a separate decree which represented the official teaching of the Synod.

And yet it is St Leo's definition of diophysis which is the standard of Orthodoxy and St. Cyril's definition of miaphysis that was discarded as insufficient.