|
0 members (),
1,720
guests, and
87
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Meyendorff's two books, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, and Imperial Unity, show just how complex that synthesis was, and why your statement is reductionist and inaccurate. Those are also great resources. I recently got a copy of Imperial Unity and have begun to read through portions of it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
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. So can St. Maximos the Confessor, and so can you and so can I. I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I've been known to be infallible, every now and again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Those are also great resources. I recently got a copy of Imperial Unity and have begun to read through portions of it. is excellent for its analysis of the intersection of ecclesiastical and secular politics, its effect upon the development of doctrine, and how the quest for unity eventually backfired into multiple divisions within the Church. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought is by far the best resource for understanding the intricacies of the various Christological controversies, what the various factions actually believed, and why, in the end, no single formulation proved satisfactory to all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 144
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 144 |
Well, I'll be at ease, to some degree, to have a heretic Pope ruling if the dogma of infallible magisterium of the Pope is true.
I'll be very worry of having a heretic Pope if the dogma is just a fantasy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
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. What could the Pope do? He could have used this as an opportunity to teach the Church about the dignity of other Churches than the Latin Rite. Perhaps something akin to Pope John Paul's Orientale Lumen? 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. Of course, that did not happen. There is no way what happened back in the 1890s to the 1930s can be justified. Of course it did. Pope Bl. Leo XIII did much to insist on the dignity of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. And what do you think the very act of providing the Easterns with their own bishops indicates? And no one is justifying what happened. What happened was wrong, but the papacy is not to blame. The complaints are based on a twisted understanding of papal prerogatives, thinking the Pope controls every little minutae in the Church. Your complaints smack of the same ungrateful propaganda proposed by those who claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough for the Jews. These ingrates prefer that Pope Pius was a martyr - of course, they can't see beyond their bias to realize that without him, the Jews would have lost one of the greatest resources for the underground movement in protection of the Jews. It's apparent your opinion is that the Pope's pastoral responsibility should have overridden any other exigency of the times. Who gives a snot about the local authority of Latin bishops, in the face of the needs of the minority Eastern Christians. Oh, if there was only such fairness and justice in the world, we would have Eastern Christians today decry the unfair treatment of the minority Latinizers in Ukraine and India who are ostracized in their native lands with the Pope's approval. One word - hypocrisy. And let's just forget that the Latin Church in the U.S was still pretty much a Church in a foreign land of Protestants struggling to maintain and defend its own identity. Since pastoral responsibility seems to be the overriding principle in your eyes, I'd like to call you on that and, pretending your principle is the only viable one, I suggest we reject your excuses for the Orthodox for rejecting the invitation to the Vatican Council. If they were serious about their pastoral responsibilities, their pride and fears should not have gotten in the way of letting their own judgments be heard at that Council. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother DTBrown, 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. I don't think anyone can deny that the general belief of many (if not most) Catholics in those early days after Vatican 1 was that the Pope could control every single local diocese in contradiction to the authority of the local bishop. But one also cannot deny that this is in fact not what Vatican 1 taught. Eastern Catholics in those days were waiting around for the Pope to overthrow the local authority of local Latin bishops in their favor. Traditionalists were waiting around for the Pope to overthrow the local authority of local Latin bishops to preserve the TLM. Eastern Catholics today are waiting around for the Pope to overthrow the local authority of local Ruthenian bishops to perserve their own Litugy. Latinizers are waiting around for the Pope to overthrow the local authority of their local hierarchs and Synods so they can maintain their Latinizations. In all these instances, the expected help did not come, not because the Pope did not want to help, but because it was/is simply not within the Pope's authority to impede the local authority of local bishops in their Churches. But people don't understand this, so they end up blaming the Pope. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
If they were serious about their pastoral responsibilities, their pride and fears should not have gotten in the way of letting their own judgments be heard at that Council. I have a feeling that had they attended, you would say, "Well of course it was ecumenical, the Orthodox were present too!" Perhaps your idea of what their pastoral responsibilities are/were do not coincide with their definition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Eastern Catholics today are waiting around for the Pope to overthrow the local authority of local Ruthenian bishops to perserve their own Litugy. I am Melkite Catholic, and I hope that the pope keeps his nose out of the internal workings of my Church (e.g., he should stop usurping the authority of the synod to appoint bishops in the diaspora).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Your complaints smack of the same ungrateful propaganda proposed by those who claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough for the Jews. These ingrates prefer that Pope Pius was a martyr - of course, they can't see beyond their bias to realize that without him, the Jews would have lost one of the greatest resources for the underground movement in protection of the Jews.
It's apparent your opinion is that the Pope's pastoral responsibility should have overridden any other exigency of the times. Who gives a snot about the local authority of Latin bishops, in the face of the needs of the minority Eastern Christians. Oh, if there was only such fairness and justice in the world, we would have Eastern Christians today decry the unfair treatment of the minority Latinizers in Ukraine and India who are ostracized in their native lands with the Pope's approval. One word - hypocrisy. I do not think that DTBrown's comments are ungrateful or discourteous at all. As I see it the pope should have stayed out of the affair, because the pope does not have the authority, nor do the Latin bishops in general have the authority, to alter the practices of the self-governing Eastern Catholic Churches, although the popes (and the Latin Church as a whole) claim to have that ability. Let's face it, the exaggerated claims of the West in connection with the papacy are the main obstacle to ecumenical rapprochement between the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother jjp, If they were serious about their pastoral responsibilities, their pride and fears should not have gotten in the way of letting their own judgments be heard at that Council. I have a feeling that had they attended, you would say, "Well of course it was ecumenical, the Orthodox were present too!" Perhaps your idea of what their pastoral responsibilities are/were do not coincide with their definition. Oh, I don't blame them for not coming either. I appreciate their situation and point of view for not coming. I'm just presenting another theoretical application of brother DTBrown's "pastoral responsbility without any other consideration" scenario. He uses it to lay blame on the Pope for something that was really not in his authority to change, which I think is very unfair. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
I do not think that DTBrown's comments are ungrateful or discourteous at all. As I see it the pope should have stayed out of the affair, because the pope does not have the authority, nor do the Latin bishops in general have the authority, to alter the practices of the self-governing Eastern Catholic Churches, although the popes (and the Latin Church as a whole) claim to have that ability. What "Church" are you talking about? When the incident with Fr. Toth occurred, all we had were a priest and a congregation under the omophor of the local Latin bishop. There was no local Eastern Church to speak of at the time. So please stop claiming this was about an Eastern Church vs. the Western Church. Let's face it, the exaggerated claims of the West in connection with the papacy are the main obstacle to ecumenical rapprochement between the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. No, the problem on this particular issue is your exaggerated claims for the papacy which, when it did not live up to your expectations, you pretend is credited for all the blame. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
Of course it did. Pope Bl. Leo XIII did much to insist on the dignity of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. And what do you think the very act of providing the Easterns with their own bishops indicates?
And no one is justifying what happened. What happened was wrong, but the papacy is not to blame. The complaints are based on a twisted understanding of papal prerogatives, thinking the Pope controls every little minutae in the Church.
Your complaints smack of the same ungrateful propaganda proposed by those who claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough for the Jews. These ingrates prefer that Pope Pius was a martyr - of course, they can't see beyond their bias to realize that without him, the Jews would have lost one of the greatest resources for the underground movement in protection of the Jews. First, I'm bowing out of this discussion. To be honest, I am shocked by your comparing my statements (which echo many other Easterners' views) to those who decry Pius XII and the Holocaust. That is totally uncalled for. I find it hard to believe you really think you can influence Orthodox and Easterners by using such rhetoric. Sorry. I see no need or a desire to continue a dialogue here. So, I'll do my own little song and dance and then leave this thread. You are free to respond but I will let you have the last word as I will not revisit this thread. I never claimed the Pope controlled every minor detail in all the dioceses of the world. But, I can not believe his hands were tied and he was helpless to intervene. Sorry. That is ludicrous. Certainly, once the parallel jurisdictions were established it would have been possible to tell the Latin Rite Bishops to mind their own business. Sadly, that didn't happen. Certainly, we agree that the idea of the Petrine ministry is not to rubber stamp what a group of Bishops want. If that's all there is to it, then there's no need for further dialogue between our Churches. The attractiveness of a genuine Petrine ministry would go beyond just signing off on what the majority of Bishops want to do. We desperately need a voice that can prick our consciences to encourage us to do the right thing -- to be the voice calling us to our senses at times. That's why I still hold out hope for such a ministry for the entire Church. You're statement "the papacy is not to blame" is the type of rhetoric I expect from apologists on such an issue. I used to play the apologist game, but no longer. Do you really think the people (and their descendants) will buy that? They tried and tried with appeals to stop the imposition of celibacy, especially after 1930. Read the stuff from Historical Mirror. Are you going to tell all of them they're just "ingrates"? If solving the Schism between our Churches means we have to state "the papacy is not to blame," then there's no hope. Thankfully, I believe your view reflects an extreme minority in Catholicism. I'm out of this thread.
Last edited by DTBrown; 02/02/11 12:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother DTBrown, Of course it did. Pope Bl. Leo XIII did much to insist on the dignity of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. And what do you think the very act of providing the Easterns with their own bishops indicates?
And no one is justifying what happened. What happened was wrong, but the papacy is not to blame. The complaints are based on a twisted understanding of papal prerogatives, thinking the Pope controls every little minutae in the Church.
Your complaints smack of the same ungrateful propaganda proposed by those who claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough for the Jews. These ingrates prefer that Pope Pius was a martyr - of course, they can't see beyond their bias to realize that without him, the Jews would have lost one of the greatest resources for the underground movement in protection of the Jews. First, I'm bowing out of this discussion. To be honest, I am shocked by your comparing my statements (which echo many other Easterners' views) to those who decry Pius XII and the Holocaust. That is totally uncalled for. I find it hard to believe you really think you can influence Orthodox and Easterners by using such rhetoric. Sorry. I see no need or a desire to continue a dialogue here. Forgive me. I don't blame you for not wanting to continue dialogue. I assumed you knew already that Popes did exhort the Catholic Church through encyclicals to respect their Eastern brethren. Given that assumption, your claim that "the Pope did not do enough" seemed awefully reminiscent of the propaganda behind Pope Pius XII and the Jews. If you really think about it, you can't blame the Pope for the arrogance of the local Latin bishops. If they did not accept the papal encyclicals, that's on them - completely. You're statement "the papacy is not to blame" is the type of rhetoric I expect from apologists on such an issue. I used to play the apologist game, but no longer. Do you really think the people (and their descendants) will buy that? They tried and tried with appeals to stop the imposition of celibacy, especially after 1930. Read the stuff from Historical Mirror. Are you going to tell all of them they're just "ingrates"? Now that's uncalled for, too. We can't blame people for being "ingrates" given the exigency of the times. As stated in an earlier post, I don't doubt that people in those days (both Easterns and Westerns) thought the Pope had absolute control in the Church so as to be able to do anything and everything. But we live in a different age where collegiality is being promoted more, a position that takes into account more contextually the decrees of Vatican 1 along with Vatican 2. We should be able to see more clearly that Vatican 1 did not in fact give the Pope such absolute authority as many pretend or like to pretend. And if there are those in this website who still blame the papacy for the events surrounding Fr. Toth, with all due respect to their opinions, I hope they change their minds. If solving the Schism between our Churches means we have to state "the papacy is not to blame," then there's no hope. Please don't extrapolate. I have not presented "the papacy is not to blame" as a general principle but only in this particular circumstance. It is just as damaging to unity to exaggerate as it is to underappreciate events, and the circumstances behind events. Forgive me for any bad feeling you may have as a result of my words. I fully accept all responsibility for any ill feelings. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
First, I'm bowing out of this discussion. To be honest, I am shocked by your comparing my statements (which echo many other Easterners' views) to those who decry Pius XII and the Holocaust. That is totally uncalled for. I find it hard to believe you really think you can influence Orthodox and Easterners by using such rhetoric. Sorry. I see no need or a desire to continue a dialogue here.
So, I'll do my own little song and dance and then leave this thread. You are free to respond but I will let you have the last word as I will not revisit this thread. Well, to be fair, this thread isn't just about mardukm. (I was going to say "this thread isn't just about mardukm even though he started it", then I realized I was mixing it up with the "Should unity realistically return to first millenium standard?" thread. This thread was started Hieromonk Ambrose.) Take me, for example; I like to think that I take a more moderate stance.
|
|
|
|
|
