Author Topic: Rome to US Eastern Catholics: New Priests Should “Embrace Celibacy”  (Read 9274 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Rome never learns.... I bet none of them anymore even know ACROD used to be their folks and left because of this crap.

Actually, out of those of us who know about ACROD, I'd bet a fair percentage do know its origins.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 02:36:58 PM by Peter J »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
the treatment of the easterners is followed intently by the Orthodox

As well you should. And, for that matter, I should probably pay more attention to how Orthodox treat WROs than I do. Maybe that'll be my lenten resolution next year.  :angel:
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Jason.Wike

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,046
Rome never learns.... I bet none of them anymore even know ACROD used to be their folks and left because of this crap.

Actually, out of those of us who know about ACROD, I'd bet a fair percentage do know its origins.

How many people that know about ACROD are anything but lay people though? Whenever I've had the chance to talk to Catholic priests and religious their knowledge of just plain, basic Catholicism always leaves me wondering what they actually do with their time. I don't think knowledge of ACROD or any Eastern Catholics is common.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 02:46:33 PM by Jason.Wike »

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Yeah, in my time in the RC it seemed like only a tiny minority of its priests knew anything about the Eastern churches. Some didn't seem to even know that they exist. It's pretty sad, honestly, but on the other hand it is explainable as so little attention is ever focused on them outside of the tokenism necessary to bolster Rome's claims of "Catholicity". Sorry, Peter J...I'm sure there's a nicer way to put that, but I am just recalling watching EWTN and how they would say during coverage of the Pope's address that the Eastern churches are the "jewels of the crown" of the Church or some such...yet only play at best maybe one program on the East per month or two, and it would be at 3 AM, and it would generally be the SAME PROGRAM...the "Light from the East" or whatever its called, with the Ukrainian guy talking about icons. Oh, and once I saw a documentary on Christianity in Iraq that was pretty good...and also on at about 1 AM and only played once...ditto a 20 minute segment on the Maronites that portrayed them pretty pitifully...I was glad that they only showed that one once...

I don't know. I hear more about the Coptic Church in Fiji through our monthly diocesan news bulletins than I ever did about non-Roman churches in my half-decade in the RC. All that I learned about them was self-sought, except for my old FOC, a Dominican priest who I must thank for introducing me to the Syriac fathers (who he learned about through going through seminary with a Chaldean priest, Fr. Bazzi of St. Peter's in San Diego). This was probably not the end he was hoping for, but still...

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Yeah, in my time in the RC it seemed like only a tiny minority of its priests knew anything about the Eastern churches. Some didn't seem to even know that they exist. It's pretty sad, honestly, but on the other hand it is explainable as so little attention is ever focused on them outside of the tokenism necessary to bolster Rome's claims of "Catholicity". Sorry, Peter J...I'm sure there's a nicer way to put that, but I am just recalling watching EWTN and how they would say during coverage of the Pope's address that the Eastern churches are the "jewels of the crown" of the Church or some such...yet only play at best maybe one program on the East per month or two, and it would be at 3 AM, and it would generally be the SAME PROGRAM...the "Light from the East" or whatever its called, with the Ukrainian guy talking about icons.

:laughing:

Wow.  :-[
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Yeah, that phrase in particular stuck in my mind, though I cannot remember the exact circumstances in which it was said. Anyway, quite appropriate for this thread, as it was said, and yet the actions surrounding it prove that it was not followed at all. It makes you wonder what they really believe. :(

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 04:30:18 PM by Pravoslavbob »
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Yeah, that phrase in particular stuck in my mind, though I cannot remember the exact circumstances in which it was said.

I have a feeling there's a Michael Scott quote that would be appropriate to put here, but I can't think of one at the moment ...
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
While acknowledging DMD's valid criticism and how bad such statements look to the Orthodox I wouldn't put too much stock into this statement. Italian Cardinals keep pretending the ban is enforce and admonsihing us about it, canonists keep reminding them it was not renewed so it lost the force of law, and Greek Catholic bishops quitely keep ordaining married men, and the past two non-Italian Popes say and do nothing to stop it.

May I remind you, Deacon Lance, that until the late 1990's (or even later?) it was simply not permitted for North American-based bishops to ordain married priests?  I have mentioned before how the issue was circumvented by Ukrainian jurisdictions who loaned married deacons to dioceses in Ukraine where the local ruling bishop then quietly ordained them to the priesthood.  If you doubt my word, please refer to the Eastern Catholic scholarly journal Logos which has featured at least one or two articles on the subject.

It is a fact that the interdiction against ordaining married Eastern-rite men to the priesthood in North America has never been revoked.  Since the turn of the millennium the emissaries of the Vatican responsible for such things has agreed to turn a blind eye to such ordinations.  This article could possibly indicate a change in this policy.
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,277
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
May I remind you, Deacon Lance, that until the late 1990's (or even later?) it was simply not permitted for North American-based bishops to ordain married priests?  I have mentioned before how the issue was circumvented by Ukrainian jurisdictions who loaned married deacons to dioceses in Ukraine where the local ruling bishop then quietly ordained them to the priesthood.  If you doubt my word, please refer to the Eastern Catholic scholarly journal Logos which has featured at least one or two articles on the subject.

It is a fact that the interdiction against ordaining married Eastern-rite men to the priesthood in North America has never been revoked.  Since the turn of the millennium the emissaries of the Vatican responsible for such things has agreed to turn a blind eye to such ordinations.  This article could possibly indicate a change in this policy.

The first ordinations in North America since 1929 were done in the late 1980's in Canada and there was a big stink initially but the priests continued to serve and nothing happened.  The Melkites ordained a married man in 1996 in th US.  The Ukrainians and Romanians in the US followed suit and my own Church finally did so in 2006.
 
In fact the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit were to be renewed ever ten years to remain in force.  They were renewed in 1940 and 1950 but not in 1960.  See page 23. 
http://archive.org/stream/CumDataFuerit1929/Cum_Data_Fuerit_1929#page/n11/mode/2up

Furthermore the CCEO, promulgated in 1990 abolished all previous laws.  So I am not sure what canonical grounds the Latin bishops are standing on when they pretend the ban is still enforce.  The only thing the article indicates is the hopes of clueless Latin hierarchs that our bishops will continue to make their lives easy.  Most realize they can no longer afford that.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Zenovia

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 777
....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  


In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?   

Celibacy in the RC is not about power, control, etc.,  it is simply a matter of economics.  The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   You know in another time and another place these homosexuals with their limited male sex drive, and which seem to abound in our society,  would have been influenced into entering the priesthood and thereby leading a more virtuous Christian life.  But they're not, so what do we get now in our topsy turvy world?  The virtues of monasticism being condemned and sinful lifestyles being lauded.  :(

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,193
May I remind you, Deacon Lance, that until the late 1990's (or even later?) it was simply not permitted for North American-based bishops to ordain married priests?  I have mentioned before how the issue was circumvented by Ukrainian jurisdictions who loaned married deacons to dioceses in Ukraine where the local ruling bishop then quietly ordained them to the priesthood.  If you doubt my word, please refer to the Eastern Catholic scholarly journal Logos which has featured at least one or two articles on the subject.

It is a fact that the interdiction against ordaining married Eastern-rite men to the priesthood in North America has never been revoked.  Since the turn of the millennium the emissaries of the Vatican responsible for such things has agreed to turn a blind eye to such ordinations.  This article could possibly indicate a change in this policy.

The first ordinations in North America since 1929 were done in the late 1980's in Canada and there was a big stink initially but the priests continued to serve and nothing happened.  The Melkites ordained a married man in 1996 in th US.  The Ukrainians and Romanians in the US followed suit and my own Church finally did so in 2006.
 
In fact the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit were to be renewed ever ten years to remain in force.  They were renewed in 1940 and 1950 but not in 1960.  See page 23. 
http://archive.org/stream/CumDataFuerit1929/Cum_Data_Fuerit_1929#page/n11/mode/2up

Furthermore the CCEO, promulgated in 1990 abolished all previous laws.  So I am not sure what canonical grounds the Latin bishops are standing on when they pretend the ban is still enforce.  The only thing the article indicates is the hopes of clueless Latin hierarchs that our bishops will continue to make their lives easy.  Most realize they can no longer afford that.

The same failure to promulgate the "particular law" which would let the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientarium go into effect on this matter.  The Vatican's bishops for the Middle East brought this up last year.  So far, AFAIK, silence.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,399
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  


In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?    

Celibacy in the RC is not about power, control, etc.,  it is simply a matter of economics.  The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   You know in another time and another place these homosexuals with their limited male sex drive, and which seem to abound in our society,  would have been influenced into entering the priesthood and thereby leading a more virtuous Christian life.  But they're not, so what do we get now in our topsy turvy world?  The virtues of monasticism being condemned and sinful lifestyles being lauded.  :(

Really? That's a broad brush to paint the RC priesthood with and in my opinion, quite unfair. Frankly, we live in a more secular world and many of the men and women who are RC who would, in an earlier period of time, have become 'religious' ( i.e. Brothers, Sisters and clergy) won't accept the 'discipline' of celibacy and they have gone into other fields, such as social work, teaching etc....
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 07:15:48 PM by podkarpatska »

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   

Now this is something I would really love to hear an explanation for.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Zenovia

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 777


Quote
In your view then, 'monasticism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?    

Celibacy in the RC is not about power, control, etc.,  it is simply a matter of economics.  The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   You know in another time and another place these homosexuals with their limited male sex drive, and which seem to abound in our society,  would have been influenced into entering the priesthood and thereby leading a more virtuous Christian life.  But they're not, so what do we get now in our topsy turvy world?  The virtues of monasticism being condemned and sinful lifestyles being lauded.  :(

Really? That's a broad brush to paint the RC priesthood with and in my opinion, quite unfair. Frankly, we live in a more secular world and many of the men and women who are RC who would, in an earlier period of time, have become 'religious' ( i.e. Brothers, Sisters and clergy) won't accept the 'discipline' of celibacy and they have gone into other fields, such as social work, teaching etc....

 If you say celibacy is a discipline, then are you saying our saints merely acquired a discipline and that they weren't given the gift of celibacy from God?  Frankly I don't believe this is Orthodox  theology.  I can  understand  someone saying they lack the sufficient 'Grace' necessary to be celibate, but to say it is not a higher state of  'Grace', would be going against the very basis of Orthodox, since we are a monastic faith..and even more so than the Latin Church.     

Anyway the RCC does have monastic 'Orders' that covers social work as well as organizations in which married people can contribute to the Church if they so desire.  Necessity demands that the RC priests must be monastic and therefore celibate.  As I said, they cannot afford married priests.  If they did, then they would probably have to dissolve their charitable institutions, and that is  something I don't think the RCC would want to do. 

 In the Orthodox Church,  the late Grand Duchess Sergius Alexandrovitch Romonov, who is now Saint Elizabeth, was given permission to start the Saints Martha and Mary Convent in Moscow after the death of her husband.  The Convent was modelled after the Western fashion, and was dedicated to helping the poor in Moscow.  She and her sister, the late Tsarina Alexandra, were both raised to be nurses by their grandmother Queen Victoria, and the worse cases were brought to Saint Elizabeth before her martyrdom  by the Bolsheviks.

I just thought I'd throw that in....  :P

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,868
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  


In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?
You do realize that the subject of discussion here is clerical celibacy, not mere celibacy per se? No one said anything about monasticism.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Curious Joe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
This is causing quite the stir within the EC community, particularly in the UGCC in the USA and Canada.

It would be nice if the hierarchs of Eastern Europe came out and spoke against this, particularly His Beatitude Sviatoslav.

I think it is critical that the Churches of Eastern Europe, those who came into communion via Brest or Uzhhorod, stick together irrespective of whether they are formally bound together (as in the case of the the UGCC) or not (as is the case with the Ruthenian Churches). When this happens, in solidarity with the other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, finality may finally be forced on this and other unfortunate subjects in the history of the Eastern Catholic experience.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,193
This is causing quite the stir within the EC community, particularly in the UGCC in the USA and Canada.

It would be nice if the hierarchs of Eastern Europe came out and spoke against this, particularly His Beatitude Sviatoslav.
That certainly would be a test of his insistance on his ecclesiastical community being a world wide church, which I expect to cross the Vatican sometime soon. 
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,399
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
To get back to the focus of the OP.....Has there been any additional news about the original statement from Rome which precipitated this derailment?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 08:32:03 AM by podkarpatska »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Signaling a possible shift in policy, Catholic News Service today reported the comments of the head of the papal office overseeing US Eastern Catholic Bishops that new vocations to the priesthood in US Eastern Catholic Churches should be “embracing celibacy” because “mandatory celibacy is the general rule for priests” in the US. For the past several years, Eastern Catholic Bishops in the US have had the option of requesting dispensations from the celibacy rule from Rome to allow for the ordination of married men to the priesthood. While it is not yet known if this signifies a change in policy on the issue, this is the first time in decades for a Vatican official to publicly encourage celibacy for Eastern Catholic clergy. It also contrasts with recent allowances of some ordinations of married men to the priesthood in the Latin Rite among clergy converts from Protestant churches.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rome-to-us-eastern-catholics-new-priests-should-embrace-celibacy/

All this represents is a the personal opinion of a Cardinal in Rome.  Who knows why he said it.  I can think of half a dozen reasons, including the possibility that some Roman rite bishops in the US asked him to...

So what...nothing else has changed.

BTW  I think Zenovia is a bright bold soul.... ;)
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 08:36:55 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,193
Signaling a possible shift in policy, Catholic News Service today reported the comments of the head of the papal office overseeing US Eastern Catholic Bishops that new vocations to the priesthood in US Eastern Catholic Churches should be “embracing celibacy” because “mandatory celibacy is the general rule for priests” in the US. For the past several years, Eastern Catholic Bishops in the US have had the option of requesting dispensations from the celibacy rule from Rome to allow for the ordination of married men to the priesthood. While it is not yet known if this signifies a change in policy on the issue, this is the first time in decades for a Vatican official to publicly encourage celibacy for Eastern Catholic clergy. It also contrasts with recent allowances of some ordinations of married men to the priesthood in the Latin Rite among clergy converts from Protestant churches.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rome-to-us-eastern-catholics-new-priests-should-embrace-celibacy/

All this represents is a the personal opinion of a Cardinal in Rome.  Who knows why he said it.  I can think of half a dozen reasons, including the possibility that some Roman rite bishops in the US asked him to...

So what...nothing else has changed.
you're right.  That particular law the Easterners who have submitted to the Vatican has not been promulgated.

But the silence on it on the Latin, i.e. Vatican,'s side has been broken.

BTW  I think Zenovia is a bright bold soul.... ;)
The blessings of....
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,277
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
But what is to stop the Congregation from ordering the return of priests ordained by eparchs in Europe to their original jurisdiction?

Nothing I suppose.  But what is going to make the bishops obey?  And there is always citizenship.  Some become American citizens and give up their old citizenship.  A cardinal tried this one already in Poland except th married priest were born in and citizens of Poland  not Ukraine.  The curia issues orders hoping they will comply knowing they really can't force them to do anything.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,193
But what is to stop the Congregation from ordering the return of priests ordained by eparchs in Europe to their original jurisdiction?

Nothing I suppose.  But what is going to make the bishops obey?  
Abp. Hefele learned the lesson of renewal of "faculties" the hard way.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 09:39:47 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Do anything think we should have a separate thread for one or the other of these 2 conversations?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,399
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Do anything think we should have a separate thread for one or the other of these 2 conversations?

I do!

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
(deleted -- decided to take my own advice and start a different thread, now that the original discussing is totally buried)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44881.new.html
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 09:43:25 PM by Peter J »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
(deleted -- decided to take my own advice and start a different thread, now that the original discussion is totally buried)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44881.new.html
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 09:45:33 PM by Peter J »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,868
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The tangent started in response to Zenovia's assertion quoted below has been moved to Religious Topics.

Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=44882.0
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 10:48:54 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,868
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Has anyone else here caught the oxymoron in the phrase "embrace celibacy"? :laugh:
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,565
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Has anyone else here caught the oxymoron in the phrase "embrace celibacy"? :laugh:

Cute.  :laugh: :laugh:
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,193
So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?
No.  The sheep who wandered astray might flock back like those who followed the Shepherd St. Alexis, embrace Orthodoxy and re-inter the Catholic Church.  How the Vatican takes that doesn't matter.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
I gotta say, that if I were an EC this would really make me wonder about the promises of Rome. Of course, this isn't a demand, but it can very easily become one.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,399
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
I gotta say, that if I were an EC this would really make me wonder about the promises of Rome. Of course, this isn't a demand, but it can very easily become one.

PP


While we Orthodox frequently complain about the Eastern Catholic churches in our midst (such as Metropolitan Hilarion's recent comments discussed earlier this year), the reality is that Orthodox leaders who are at least open-minded regarding dialogue with the Church of Rome (as well as those of us who profess more suspicion) tend to view the Eastern Churches as a 'canary' in the Roman mine shaft. These recent developments were received either with sadness or "I told you so" depending on your stand as they indicate a lack of 'oxygen' in Rome's view of the east.  This should make EC's fret about their future. As we say, the door is always open here!

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
I gotta say, that if I were an EC this would really make me wonder about the promises of Rome. Of course, this isn't a demand, but it can very easily become one.

PP


While we Orthodox frequently complain about the Eastern Catholic churches in our midst (such as Metropolitan Hilarion's recent comments discussed earlier this year), the reality is that Orthodox leaders who are at least open-minded regarding dialogue with the Church of Rome (as well as those of us who profess more suspicion) tend to view the Eastern Churches as a 'canary' in the Roman mine shaft. These recent developments were received either with sadness or "I told you so" depending on your stand as they indicate a lack of 'oxygen' in Rome's view of the east.  This should make EC's fret about their future. As we say, the door is always open here!

I've been hearing Orthodox say this sort of thing for many years now; but just in the last couple years I've started to wonder if this isn't the first part of a bait-and-switch.  :(
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
What do you mean by that, Peter J?

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Quote
ve been hearing Orthodox say this sort of thing for many years now; but just in the last couple years I've started to wonder if this isn't the first part of a bait-and-switch
But Rome's "suggestion" IS a bait-and-switch....well, let me take that back. It COULD be a bait and switch depending if this suggestion gets forgotten, or Rome pushes this suggestion a bit further.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Hiwot

  • Christ is Risen!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,959
  • Job 19:25-27
Has anyone else here caught the oxymoron in the phrase "embrace celibacy"? :laugh:

LOL!! good one!
To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:41:30 AM by jmbejdl »
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO,

I believe there are LCs who are quite anti-EC -- in fact I believe I have encountered that in my own life -- but I don't think that LCs in general are "more anti-EC than they are anti-EO".

which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

But let me ask you this: if (and I don't know how big of an if this is for you) you guys didn't have any suspicions that latinizations would be pushed on you, would you consider coming into communion with Rome?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,193
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO,

I believe there are LCs who are quite anti-EC -- in fact I believe I have encountered that in my own life -- but I don't think that LCs in general are "more anti-EC than they are anti-EO".

which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

But let me ask you this: if (and I don't know how big of an if this is for you) you guys didn't have any suspicions that latinizations would be pushed on you, would you consider coming into communion with Rome?
we are in communion with Rome.


As for the Vatican, your scenario doesn't say anything about it giving up its heresies.

And yes, the Vatican's Latins include those who are much more "anti-EC" than anti-EO. One reason why many Orthodox point out that the "Eastern sui juris" are not the door to the Vatican, but the door mat.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,409
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO,

I believe there are LCs who are quite anti-EC -- in fact I believe I have encountered that in my own life -- but I don't think that LCs in general are "more anti-EC than they are anti-EO".

which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

But let me ask you this: if (and I don't know how big of an if this is for you) you guys didn't have any suspicions that latinizations would be pushed on you, would you consider coming into communion with Rome?

dont we already have this??   Its called the Eastern Catholic church.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James

That isn't a very clear answer, but perhaps the best way to move forward in this conversation is if I were to put the same thing to you that you put to me. Namely, can you guarantee that any LC who become Orthodox don't have to delatinize (or should I say Easternize)?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)