www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Text of Cum Data Fuerit (1929)

Exactly! May the Orthodox Bishops demand that Rome prove it!

This should be the first step of every ecumenical dialog between the Orthodox and Rome. Let the Orthodox say to Rome that if she has no desire to impose these things upon the Orthodox, that she must relinquish these impositions on the ECCs, and only then will the Orthodox take Rome at its word, and only then will they move forward with any other discussions.

That would get Rome's attention quickly, not to mention it could raise the morale of ECs, to see that the Orthodox are coming to their defense and support.

I think that when Eastern Catholics impose these things on themselves, its cuts the legs out from under any Orthodox stand on the matter.

The resistance by many parishes within the BCC to the reintroduction of a more eastern praxis underscores the last poster's point. Heck, over the years, we had the same problem in many ACROD parishes, so I imagine it is far more complicated in the BCC given the degree of Latinization which occurred in some parishes following 1940.

Fair point and well put. That said, I fear there are relatively few of my generation, those who are of age to be most influenced and influencial in this regard, who have taken the time to fully appreciate the history and the path to what is the Byzantine Catholic Church in the U.S today, as we know it. We cannot appreciate, accept nor yearn for that which we do not know. I speak mostly from my experience and witness as a "cradle" Ruthenian Catholic of the now married-with-kids generation.

But what exactly is this resistance and what drives it? I'd submit that it has less to do with a rejection of true Eastern praxis, which few have truly experienced and would fully understand, and more to do with the general human tendency to gravitate to what is most comfortable - that which we know. And let's face it, the damage has been done. The current generation of Eastern Catholic adults probably just don't know how it should be, other than what we remember our grandparents telling us. Those of us who stay in the fold like being different, but we also seek to find ways in which we are the same, simply because we still live in a broader Catholic community that is poorly catechized on the East and still thinks the world revolves around Rome.

We also now have practical considerations to deal with first and foremost. Many of our churches struggle to survive financially and otherwise. While we may all acknowledge how nice it may be to see a married priesthood once again, for example, the economics of such are very different than they were a few generations ago. Our opportunities to build a parish infrastructure capable of supporting this are long gone in many respects.

Even absent structural considerations, we still suffer from a fundamental lack of appreciation for such basic things as the Eastern cycle of worship. Take a poll of Eastern Catholics, and ask how many know of and have been to Matins (controlling, of course, for a response to the affirmative based on attendance for Pascal Matins). How many parishes actually have Matins and Vespers regularly? Not a critcism here, either - sometimes its just not possible. Further, the demands of modern family live generally would preclude regular attendance.

IMHO, in order for us to fully restore our traditions and return to our roots, it has to start at the top and continue from the top, patiently yet insistently - with leadership from our hierarchs and clergy - education of our faithful - and, most importantly, consistency in application both within the parishes and at the Eparchial level. What we lost a few generations ago will take a generation or two to restore, but we have to start somewhere ...

Not a bad idea!

Vladyka Vsevolod told me on several occasions that Eastern Catholic bishops would ask him to raise certain issues with the Holy See, as the Eastern Congregation had a tendency to ignore their correspondence. He said it was indicative of the lack of respect within the Vatican for the Eastern Catholic Churches that the Orthodox, who were not in communion with Rome, were treated with greater respect and deference than the Eastern Catholics, who were.

The idea of having the Orthodox insist Rome respect the rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches--or at least extend to us the same autonomy that Rome is promising the Orthodox when communion is restored--has much to recommend it. I doubt it will ever happen, though, because too many of the Orthodox simply want us to disappear, and object to anything that smacks of granting us true ecclesial status.

This is what I was getting at, and I do believe that our own uniate tendencies (whatever the circumstance) are at least partially to blame. If the Orthodox do not see themselves in us, but instead see some twisted hybrid that has no sense of its own identity, why even bring the point up in talking to Rome, other than to make sure it does not persist? If the example we set of union with Rome is subservience to Rome and the distortion of our Eastern faith, then you can bet they want nothing to do with it, and rightfully so.

I remember the Society of St. John Chrysostom Light of the East ecumenical conference in Irvine last year. Fr. Ronald Robertson of the USCCB (whom I was impressed with), Fr. Thomas Fitzgerald, dean of Holy Cross GO seminary (who seemed irrationally hung up on the Filioque), Metropolitan Gerasimos of the GOA, Bishop Brown of Orange County.... all spoke and when they spoke of the Eastern Catholic Churches (specifically Frs. Ronald and Thomas, both of whom serve on the Joint Commission), they spoke of them as if they were a negotiation to be made, a sticking point.... a problem to be solved. And not even in a condescending or hostile manner, but matter-of-fact. An annoying wrench in the gears, rather than a Church worthy of honor and dignity.

They also spoke of the topic only through the lens of Ukraine and the Russians, ignoring the ancient history of the Middle Eastern Patriarchates with a less controversial history. Bishop Nicholas of the Melkite Church was scheduled to speak as well but was ill, if I remember correctly, and his presence was sorely missed.

My point is that you will never see the Orthodox insisting for the rights of Eastern Catholics when said Eastern Catholics don't insist on these things themselves first.

Which is why it is so vitally important in the ecumenical world that we live our faith as truly Eastern according to our patristic traditions, rather than as hybrid Romans, or even as genuinely obedient to leadership that would steer us away from this path, let alone those of us that join an Eastern Church to run from Rome, rather than to embrace the ancient Eastern faith. Otherwise, we do more damage than good to the unity of the two Churches.

Well, we are a sticking point, and we should realize that. We should also accept that, as Bishop John Michael (Botean) says, "We have a vocation to disappear"; i.e., that when the restoration of communion is achieved, we should be going home to our Orthodox Mother Churches, since there will longer be a real need for distinct parallel jurisdictions. There are a lot of Eastern Catholics who still think they can be some sort of Tertium Quid, neither Latin nor Orthodox. That dog won't hunt.

How much respect an Eastern Catholic Church gets from the Orthodox is directly proportional to how determined they appear to stand up to Rome when it comes to living out the fullness of the Eastern Tradition inside the Catholic communion. Those Churches that have some spine fare better with the Orthodox than those that are supine.

There's also the factor that some (especially some Latin Church apologists) actively seek to convert Orthodox to Eastern Catholic Churches. Granted, some of this is the usual polemical banter between our Churches (and of which we are often guilty of as well), but this does sometimes charge the ecumenical atmosphere with distrust.

Well said. I think that if we were all to agree with Bishop John Michael, we wouldn't be much of a sticking point at all.

Granted there are also geopolitical aspects to the friction (again speaking mostly of Ukraine), but if we were truly to disappear into our sister churches in a united Church, well, that would solve the uniate problem anyways.

As I have posted often on oc.net, it is not coincidence that the two Orthodox leaders who were most understanding of and sympathetic towards the Eastern Catholics (and who fully embraced you as brothers and sisters in Christ) were the late Vladyko Vsevelod and the late Metropolitan Nicholas. Each was a gentle man who grew up surrounded by the bubbling cauldron that was, and to some extent is, the relationship between the Orthodox and the Uniates. When I read an otherwise intelligent and wise Bishop like Hilarion of the MP pontificate (yes, pun is intended here) on the problems in Ukraine and the Eastern Catholics there, I have to laugh and cry as he really only has a preconceived notion about the issues and the reality on the ground. The Greeks are the same way. Neither of them really 'get' the problem - hence you (and those of us in Orthodoxy who come from 'you') are in many ways in the same boat. Oh well, hang in there. S'bohom!

Just found the Latin text of Ea Semper (1907)

Ea Semper Latin Text in PDF [documentacatholicaomnia.eu] pages 3-15

Ea Semper on pp. 79-86 [archive.org]

I think Article 12 contains the section regarding celibacy:

Art. XII. Sacerdos eligendus, sit caelebs, vel saltem viduus
et absque liberis, integer vitae , zelo ac pietate praeditus,
satis eruditus, lucri non cupidus, et a politicis factionibus
alienus.

Would anyone be willing to attempt an English translation?

Further searching has found a contemporary English explanation of Ea Semper, including background leading to its promulgation, from The American Ecclesiastical Review:

1907 Review of Ea Semper [archive.org]

It gives this overview of what Ea Semper said about Ruthenian priests on pages 462-464. The first two paragraphs discuss the celibacy restrictions:

Status of the Ruthenian Clergy

The priests who minister at present to the Ruthenian faithful are almost exclusively emigrants from Austria-Hungary. In future their places are to be filled from the ranks of candidates educated in America, either in theological seminaries of their own rite, or (so long as such seminaries have not been established) in the Latin seminaries of the American dioceses in which they were born or have acquired domicile. Only such candidates as take the vow of celibacy will be henceforth admitted to ordination in the United States. The Ruthenian bishop is required, nevertheless, to take active measures, in concert with the Apostolic Delegate and the various Ordinaries concerned, for the establishment of Ruthenian theological seminaries.

In the meantime pastoral vacancies in the Ruthenian mission are to be filled by such Ruthenian priests as may be found suitable within the diocese where the vacancy exists. If a bishop has no Ruthenian priest capable of assuming the responsibility, he may apply to any other bishop who can supply the need from the ranks of his own clergy. If all efforts to supply a Ruthenian priest from the American missions fail, the S. Congregation of the Propaganda is to be notified and it will take the responsibility of sending a priest. In respect of the qualifications necessary on the part of the Ruthenian priest not ordained in America for assuming pastoral charge, the Sovereign Pontiff ordains that he be a celibate, or at least a widower without children, of untainted reputation, zeal, and piety, and sufficiently intelligent and cultured, a true priest, hicri non cupidus, that is, not making of his priestly calling a business to enrich himself; and, lastly, free from any attachment to political factions.

Every Ruthenian priest who is called to assume missionary work in the United States must obtain from the S. Congregation of the Propaganda a letter permitting his going to America and specifying the particular Ruthenian mission to which he is to go. All such priests, although they remain perpetually incardinated in the diocese from which they come, receive and exercise their faculties in absolute independence of the Ruthenian Ordinary of the diocese of their origin during the time they spend in missionary work in the United States. They are not at liberty to return to their original diocese at home, without the written consent of the Ordinary in whose diocese they are at the time doing missionary work. If they wish to transfer their pastoral charge from one diocese to another, they need in every case the consent of the Ordinary in whose diocese they are, as well as of the Ordinary to whose jurisdiction they wish to be transferred. They are instructed to inform the Ruthenian bishop also.

Ruthenian students who are candidates for Holy Orders, no matter what may be the place of their birth or domicile, are incardinated in that diocese whose bishop accepts them and at whose hands they take the oath of fidelity and stability in missionary service. If they wish later on to be affiliated to another diocese, they require the consent of their Ordinary as well as that of the bishop into whose diocese they seek adoption. They are to inform the Ruthenian bishop of the change.

Ruthenian priests are removable ad nutum Ordinarii loci; but there must be a just and serious cause for the removal, lest it be to the prejudice of the incumbent. Such changes are to be reported to the Ruthenian bishop, presumably at the instance of the Ordinary or through the chancellor. If a priest feel that he is unfairly treated in the removal, he may lodge an appeal with the Apostolic Delegate at Washington, who is to give his decision within three months from the date of the appeal. In a last instance recourse may be had to the Holy See. But in all such cases of appeal, which are termed in devohitivo, the previous judgment stands until it is reversed or amended.

In regard to the salaries, perquisites, and general maintenance of the Ruthenian clergy, the rules laid down by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, interpreted by the diocesan statutes, are to be observed in accordance with custom and the judgment of the Ruthenian bishop.

Thanks for posting. Just a few quick 'ruminations' on this.

Obviously we all know that Ea Semper was followed neither in spirit nor in letter by the Greek Catholic Ordinaries of Europe regarding their expatriate populations in North America. This held true for both the Galician, as well as the Ruthenian Bishops. Likewise, the lamented Bishop Soter did little, if anything, to 'enforce' these 'marching orders.'

Since we must assume that these late hierarchs were well educated for their times and were loyal to the Holy See, one must ask the question - Why was this clear order so obviously ignored?

I would posit an answer that is clear to me at least. These Bishops knew full well what the terms of the Unions governing their unity with Rome meant and what their status as a Church was - rather than a subordinate 'rite' as envisioned by the majority of the Latin Church. Simply stated, they probably viewed Ea Semper as just another in a long line of diktats from Rome which they conveniently placed in a circular file.

One has to remember that although communication in those days was slow, it existed. The Bishops had to be well aware of the plight of Fr. Toth for he was, after all, a well educated and respected member of their inner circle as Rector of the Presov Academy prior to his being dispatched to North America. To think that Fr. Toth failed to write to his former colleagues regarding the treatment of the Ruthenian clergy and peoples by the American Roman hierarchy simply can not be believed. Certainly he implored them for assistance prior to the final break with the Catholic Church upon his visitation to the Russian Orthodox in San Francisco. (I think you also have to keep in mind that they all lived shortly after the life of Duchnovych - the great father of the Rusyn revitalization - and a man who was, in the end, a loyal Greek Catholic BUT a friend of things Russian and panslavic ideas.)

With the chaos brewing in Europe prior to the first war, and the problems within the immigrant community in America boiling, the last thing the European bishops wanted to happen was to have the American problems filter their way back to the old world.

Interesting, and really, still relevant.

Not only was Ea Semper ignored, it was actively opposed by the first Eastern Catholic Bishop for the US, Soter Ortynsky.

Doing more research this morning on this in Historical Mirror by Fr. John Slivka [archive.org] with regards to reaction to Ea Semper, I came across this fascinating response to it by Bishop Soter Ortynsky on pp. 68-75.

Pastoral Letter by Bishop Soter Ortynsky on Ea Semper [archive.org]

Some of Bishop Soter's comments to his flock:

Concerning the "EA SEMPER" Bulla given by Rome for the Rusins in the United States of America, I did not know about it here nor in Europe. Being in the United States of America for a month I was called to the Apostolic Delegate, Washington, D. C. He advised me about the Bulla. Here I have in my hand a copy of a protest against the "EA SEMPER" Bulla. I considered unjust for the Greek Rite Catholic Church and the people. I at once protested and did not promulgate it to the clergy and people....

The only way the "EA SEMPER" Bulla will loose its strength if you will support the Greek Rite Catholic bishop to establish a Eparchy. Our goal is to establish a Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States of America, to have our own Eparchy and laws. If the first bishop resigns on account of the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, as some wish that I do. What will happen? No, the bishop and the people will not permit the destruction of the Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States of America....

Dear Brothers, Clergy and People, sons of the Greek Rite Catholic Church. I am solemnly declaring, that I as a Greek Rite Catholic bishop appointed for the Rusin people and other national people of the same rite, that I will place all my strength to secure and defend the laws of our Church, help me. Fear not hardship, struggle, the struggle will bring life. The grace of God is stronger than the temptations of the evil sons. Be assured that the bishop has done everything possible. The Bulla is not for the betterment of our Church. Let us unite, work hard one for all and all for one. This can happen only among righteous people, who know that all power is given from above by God.