www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Celibate Clergy and Latin Catholics

Dear Joe,

Please don't leave, Joe!

Dr. John can be a bit caustic at times .

But I think that is not because of Dr. John's Eastern Christianity, but because of his training as a Jesuit .

(Hopefully, by the time I'm done this post, the two of you won't be leaving here together . . .).

I personally don't think anyone here would like to impose a married clergy on the Latin Church.

And I only asked a question about that "sex before Mass" issue for Eastern priests.

On the other hand, the Church canons (such as those of St John II Metropolitan of Kyiv) forbade sex before Communion for LAY CHRISTIANS and no sex also on ALL Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

I don't know what the status of those canons today are either.

Then again, I am no Dr. John, or Anastasius the Academician or Joe the Zealot!

Please stay, Joe!

I can get my head handed to me some times here and I never threaten to leave . . . wait a minute, I can feel my nose growing all of a sudden!

Alex

In short, the calling to the Priesthood is not as obscure a thing as some writers have unfortunatly made it sound. While it is true some young men feel called by some extraordinary sensible grace, or even via a private revelation, historically most men who entered the priesthood did so because they were...

a) asked to

b) made a sober, prayerful descision that this was the thing for them to do, and that they had the qualities to live up to this vocation

Strictly speaking the "calling" is not a direct one from Heaven, but is the call of the Church Herself, asking men to step forward and offer their lives for the tending of the vinyard.

This is demonstrated in the traditional Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II) for ordination, where it's very obvious that it is the Church in the person of the Bishop, that is issuing the "calling". By taking that first step forward, the young men assembled before the Bishop (ready to receive the first Major Order), are implicitly vowing their obedience to the Bishop, but more significantly, to remain in the unmarried state.

Thus it really comes down to "who is the Church calling?" The argument that the Roman Church has committed a wrong because it's denying ordination to "many young men with a calling, but who are also called to marriage" is nonsensical; it is the Church who issues the calling, so if they're only calling unmarried men, that is who they are calling.

As for the discipline itself, it has it's virtues. Strictly speaking, it is the "best" state, if someone can live up to it. This is not only for practical reasons, but for spiritual reasons as well; all of which are clearly laid out in the sayings of Christ and His Apostle (St.Paul).

This is beside the fact that the expectation of at least Priestly continenance (in the cases of married Priests and Bishops) was the norm in the early Church (both East and West) more so than the exception (though there are notable, and many, examples of these exceptions.)

Unless I am very mistaken, in the Eastern Catholic Churches Priests who are married (even though allowed some exercise of the marriage rights) are expected to abstain from the use of their rights within marriage prior to ministering at the Altar. Can anyone confirm this? This is what I've read in several sources, and it would at least implicitly support the practice of the Roman Rite (to the extent that it is expected of Roman Priests to say Mass every single day, which in my understanding is not common with Eastern Catholic Priests).

As for comments about celibacy supposedly having something to do with the current scandals, one couldn't be any more wrong. First, I don't recall how being chaste could turn one into a homosexual or a pedophile (interestingly, most of these crimes should not be categorized as pedophilia, but homosexual abuse of young men and adolecents); it seems the problems with normal Priests who are not inclined towards perversion are not tremendous (not too many stories of Priests and their parish secretaries, or what have you.)

Second, the very problems we are seeing are the result of not living up to this calling (which they freely submitted to; what next, we excuse monastics of their indescretions?), not the calling itself.

Third, besides the lavender mafia that controls many seminaries, and the general heterodoxy of said institutions, the Priesthood itself has suffered at the hands of modernism in the Church since Vatican II. The best of civilization, generally have little interest in being Priests; indeed, why would I want to give up my liberty, the possibility of a pretty wife, etc., just to be a glorified social worker?

On the other hand, knowing one is called to be "another Christ", and minister before God's Altar, renewing the sacrifice of Calvary for the forgiveness of sins, and the true worship of God...that one is set apart from men, to do holy things...this is most certainly worth giving up one's life, abandoning all (which was Christ's calling to the Apostles) to go and do His work.

Augustine

Dear Augustine,

Welcome and congratulations on your first post!

Yes, the formal rubrics for married Eastern priests state that the priest may not even sleep in the same room as his wife the day before serving the Divine Liturgy, under pain of sin.

This certainly applied to the earlier married priests of the Latin Church.

But by the same token, the same rule applied to all married laity as well, and we cannot overlook this ancient rule if we are going to apply to priests.

Laity were forbidden sex the night before attendance at Mass and Communion.

Laity were forbidden sex throughout Great Lent and on all fast days, including Wednesdays and Fridays and on all days when they attended Mass.

According to the canons, laity, like Priests, are forbidden to excuse themselves from Communion during Mass. If they do, they must give a reason, otherwise face excommunication. These are the teachings of the ancient canons of the Councils recognized by both East and West.

In terms of continence practiced by both Western and Eastern priests in the early Church, that certainly occurred, but it also occurred among married laity who sought to live special lives of devotion.

Again, marriage is not about "pretty wives" and this thinking betrays a view of marriage that is very Western and modern ie. marriage simply as a medium that allows for the calming of sexual passion.

Marriage is much more than that and our tradition of married priests demonstrates that.

Wives of priests lead exemplary lives of devotion and assist their husbands in their ministry, as my grandmother did who effectively ran the parish and still got in two full rosaries a day, including daily Mass and other prayers.

Certainly celibacy doesn't cause pedophilia. I don't think that is the issue with the current scandals in the U.S. which the Holy Father has determined to settle himself by calling the U.S. cardinals to Rome.

It is really a question of public trust in one's bishops and in there responsibility to protect their flock from such ill people, including the priest who was not only a pedophile, but who was an active member of an organization that promoted sex between men and boys.

Regardless of what one can say about the matter, Latin Catholic laity feel betrayed here.

The rule governing celibacy and the rules governing Mass etc. are rules the Church can change.

If not, then we should apply the same rules governing lay chastity before Mass and Communion that were also set down by the same Councils.

While certainly the Church calls a man to the Priesthood in terms of obedience to a bishop and the Church, it is also certain that a man can and should feel an inner call of the Holy Spirit to this state.

The Church has always regarded the monastic and Episcopal states as "states of perfection."

A secular priest, even though unmarried, is not in a "state of perfection" however.

He would have to become a religious to be in such.

We in the East have always had both married and unmarried priests. We have never imposed celibacy and have benefited from both traditions.

As for married priesthood in the West, that could be something that an irate laity may decide for the Church over time. In any event, you do have former Protestant clergy who now work as married Latin Catholic priests.

The Latin Church didn't decline to ordain them as Latin Catholic priests, even though they are married.

So clearly that is not an absolute canonical impediment.

+ Dominus Vobiscum,

Alex

One poster writes
One Orthodox priest convert with whom I spoke said that his bishop never even mentioned the "no sex before liturgy" rule. I say abolish it. It's a silly concept based on a faulty notion of human sexuality. We went into this in depth last year on the forum.

If it is faulty, then the sensibility of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers, and Saints is "faulty". I think they understand human nature far better than we do.

That canons are not being enforced, does not mean they are wrong, or somehow lacking.

Dr. John Writes:
People do nutsy-cuckoo stuff about sex -- too many are scared to death about it. But the fact remains: the 'helpmate' issue is the critical one. We humans need to be intimately involved with other human beings who can love us, support us, share with us, and kick us in the butt when we need it. The Lord's prescription is a good one. All life-forms that the Lord created have a genetic predisposition to be with others of the species. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is a lifelong commitment to one particular "other".

Well you won't get a very strong argument for monogamy in nature. But we don't need to; some animals also eat their young...I don't suppose that proves anything either.

You are right, in so far that people need a relationship. According to Catholic teaching, every man has a right to be married, unless he voluntarily gives up that right; and it is for the reason you site. Marriage is good; between baptized persons it is a Sacrament. However I cannot help but call to mind the words God spoke to His Priest, Aaron...

20 And the Lord said to Aaron: You shall possess nothing in their land, neither shall you have a portion among them: I am thy portion and inheritance in the midst of the children of Israel.(Numbers 18:20)

All of the other Israelites inherited lands, temporal goods, when they settled into the Promised Land; but the Priests received none of this by right. Rather, their portion was God.

This can be said to this day, of the Priest who leaves everything behind (personal ambitions, career, prospect of a beautiful wife, etc.) and makes the work of God his entire life. His sustenance is not mediated, for while he will always be with the people, he is in some sense apart from them as well - but God Himself, will suffice, and be His portion.

For those who have the grace to be 'solitaries' ['monk' is Greek 'monarchos', literally 'one ruler', i.e., the self and not the helpmate], then that is their grace and we must honor it in the same way as we honor ALL members of our community. It is not better or worse; it's just a grace.

While I wholeheartedly believe in the goodness (and sacramentality!) of marriage, I think we should let the words of St.Paul, rather than egalitarianism guide our judgement of these things...

38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.(1st Corinthians 7:38)

This is besides St.Paul's praising of the celibate state earlier in the chapter, both for practical and for spiritual/ascetical reasons (even to the point of recommending continence in marriage for laity, during periods of prayer and fasting.)

There are, in my opinion, waaaaay too many folks out there who have no one to love them and help them through the travails of life. And, as a result, there's all kinds of folks who inveigh against a loving priestly relationship since it perhaps could involve intimacy. Thus, the prohibition against intimate activity prior to liturgy.

It would seem to me you're judging the wisdom of our forefathers, whose sanctity and familiarity with human nature should give us reason to pause, before launching into harsh criticism of their ideas.

The Apocalypse says something very interesting, of some import to this discussion...

1 And I beheld: and lo a Lamb stood upon mount
Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousand, having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the noise of many waters and as the voice of great thunder. And the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers, harping on their harps.
3 And they sung as it were a new canticle, before
the throne and before the four living creatures and the ancients: and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand who were purchased from the earth.
4 These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth there was found no lie: for they are without spot before the throne of God.

The question is often asked "why does the New Testament, and Old Testament prophecy, mention Mt.Zion so often?" It is because it was upon Mt.Zion, on Maudy Thursday, that the Mass was established. The symbolism of the Lamb upon Mt.Zion, with worshipful elders and angels is refering to this; a heavenly mystery renewed with the celebration of each Mass.

It is the virgins who are closest to this Altar, and who are praised here as having not "defiled" (the Bible's word, not mine) themselves with women.

Obviously the sense here isn't that married love is a sinful. But there is a real sense in which the use of those rights (much like the eating of a sumptuous meal, or fine chocolates with a snifter of cognac) is not the most spiritual of pursuits. This is exactly why when one is striving for the Kingdom of God, they fast; and the strictest of fasts involves the abstention from the use of one's marital rights.

The virgins about the throne (who are all men) are very symbolic of the Roman Catholic sensibility on this issue; it also affects Eastern Catholic canons as well (which do require abstention from married relations, as some other users here have made clear.)

In the Old Testament itself, the Priests (when it was their turn to minister in th Tabernacle), separated themselves from their wives. Indeed when the people were going to ratify their covenant with the Lord at Mt.Sinai, they were told to abstain.

Strictly speaking, eastern rules (when respected) for this are much more clearly stated than those in the west, in the case of laity going to Holy Communion; however my Moral Theology guide (it's a handbook for Priests), and everything I've read that's dealt with the subject, does strongly advise (though not upon pain of sin) that the laity not only fast from food and drink, but also from the use of conjegal rights, prior to receiving Holy Communion.

What the Western Church determines is the paradigm for their clergy is their business. But for us Easterns, we have the tradition of recognizing that ALL human beings have the right to have a helpmate -- just as the Lord has ordained. And we must defend this reality to the utmost, regardless of what the 'powers that be' have mandated because of some theological perspective.

While I appreciate the differences between "Eastern" and "Western" Catholicism, I'm finding that sometimes these differences are grossly exaggerated pundits on both sides of the equation. There is also something to be said for truth, which is itself universal...there is not a "Latin" truth and a "Byzantine" truth. The same Eucharist is being celebrated at either Altar, the same Heavenly Sacrifice is being offered, the same High Priest is truly offering (in the person of His ordained minister). Thus while there will be differences in sensibilities, specific customs, emphasis, etc. (indeed, you find such differences in the personalities of Saints), we cannot propose there are different "truths."

Thus while the practice of Eastern Catholic parish clergy is legitimate, canonical, and worthy, it doesn't operate on some different axiomatic principle than the Roman Catholic Priest operates with. We cannot say they have the same faith, if they have a "truth" particularly to themselves.

The fact of the matter is, also, that the prescence of celibate/perfectly chaste clergy is not something totally foreign to the Eastern tradition. Eventually it's something that became limited to the monasteries, but it was by no means uncommon in the East in the first centuries of the Catholic Church. However now, one finds no such Eastern Catholic Priests, save in the west where the Latin discipline is required of Eastern Catholic Priests.

Augustine

But by the same token, the same rule applied to all married laity as well, and we cannot overlook this ancient rule if we are going to apply to priests.

Well because we are without one, does not mean we MUST be without the other.

As an Easterner, you should understand the concept of "economy" very well. It can be argued many things (laxer rules to faciliate frequent reception of Holy Communion, the whole business of making sacramental confession private, NFP, etc.) that are licit in the Roman Church, are exercises of economy; it's the recognition that the Church is working for the salvation of even the weakest in it's flock.

However even in the Roman Church (I can only speak of my experience as a "traditionalist"; the Novus Ordo crowd don't seem to get much instruction at all in this regard) there are still traditions, and encouragements to do more "than what is barely licit". Indeed, you CAN get away with just going to confession once a year during the Easter season...but that very likely is not what you need to do to reach your personal perfection. In fact no sensible spiritual father would say that is acceptable course to take.

Thus the moral manuals I've read, still advice what St.Paul does; mutual agreement to abstain during penetential seasons, and for preparation to go to Mass (with the ideal being the reception of Holy Communion each time one goes).

However I think it's also fair to say that Priests MUST live up to a higher standard. While we all have the same calling to Sainthood, the Priest (because he enters the Altar, and represents the Church, as well as Christ the High Priest) has an obligation to "be perfect" that is at least more urgent. Thus if concessions are being made for the laity, they themselves must do better. The eastern canons themselves would SEEM to reflect that, if I'm understanding everyone correctly.

In terms of continence practiced by both Western and Eastern priests in the early Church, that certainly occurred, but it also occurred among married laity who sought to live special lives of devotion.

Of course. However, it was in most places the rule with clergy, while this certainly wasn't the case of laity; if that were the case, all of the Catholics in those areas would have been converts!

The rational for it, was for reasons I addressed in a recent post. While they do apply in degree to the laity, their application to Priests is more absolute, and essential; like the sinners of old Israel, I can stay beyond the Altar rail... but the Priest through his person and words, must offer the pure oblation.

Again, marriage is not about "pretty wives" and this thinking betrays a view of marriage that is very Western and modern ie. marriage simply as a medium that allows for the calming of sexual passion.

7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. (1st Corinthians 7:7-9)

Granted, that is not all marriage is. But neither Holy Tradition, nor Scriptures envision marital acts themselves as being something excrutiatingly beautiful or particularly spiritual; in fact it tends to be the opposite (if that weren't the case, continance would not be a part of strict fasting). While marriage is good (it's a sacrament, thus it's holy), for those who think they can hack it, celibacy is better. I know it's not p.c. to say one thing is better than another, but the Apostle himself does just that (as does the Tradition of the Church)

38 Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better. (1st Corinthians 7:38)

It is really a question of public trust in one's bishops and in there responsibility to protect their flock from such ill people, including the priest who was not only a pedophile, but who was an active member of an organization that promoted sex between men and boys.

I agree. I'm quite angry over the whole thing myself. I suppose I come at this from a different view than most, given that I think there are far more profound problems in the Catholic Church right now than this; this is just one of the fruits of the real crisis (which is one that pertains to the doma of the faith.)

The rule governing celibacy and the rules governing Mass etc. are rules the Church can change.

"CAN" to a degree, yes...will...I doubt it. There is no obvious good in going over to a married parish clergy, on any level. Any argument that it would mean more vocations, even if true (which I very much doubt), does not wash because one has to wonder how the Church always had vocations (and many, both to the Priesthood and to the religious life) in times past, but now it's a problem.

Frankly, it's because people don't want to make sacrifices in their personal lives, let alone sacrifice their life itself at the Altar of God. That is a fruit of a crisis in faith, just as the scandals are.

While certainly the Church calls a man to the Priesthood in terms of obedience to a bishop and the Church, it is also certain that a man can and should feel an inner call of the Holy Spirit to this state.

Hmmm...not necessarily. It doesn't have to be any more gushing, or warm an experience than the decision one makes, after prayer and meditation (which should go before any major decision a responsible person makes) one decides to enlist in the army to go fight in a war. That there can be sensible graces, is of course true. But it can very much be a decision one makes. The one issuing the calling is the Bishop; that he accepts the young man after some scrutiny, and necessary education/formation, is enough.

While we can argue there are certain personality types that are more apt to go the way of the religious life, I think most modern people have been blinded by the over-mystification of the Priestly calling, or even the calling to the religious life. This has also hurt vocations, as it's a good way of obfuscating a real calling/vocation to the Priesthood or religous life ("well, since I haven't received a sensible grace or private revelation, it's not for me, no matter how well suited I am to it, or capable of living up to it's requirements")

There was a time, when you saw that every large family (and Catholic families tended to be just that, in most cases; large!) typically had at least a Priest, or a person sworn to the religious life, come out of it. This revival (both of large, generous families, and vocations coming from these beautiful schools of charity) is beginning to be seen, I'm noticing, in the so called "traditionalist" part of the Roman Church (which in my opinion is the only part that is healthy right now.)

We in the East have always had both married and unmarried priests. We have never imposed celibacy and have benefited from both traditions.

In theory yes, but in reality the only celibate clergy were widowers, or monastics. I've even been told by both Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, that in the old country, a celibate diocesan Priest would be an anomally.

The Latin Church didn't decline to ordain them as Latin Catholic priests, even though they are married.

Yes, but it's still something of a symptom of the mushy heads which are running the show right now. It's not wrong, strictly speaking (as it's the norm for Eastern Catholics), but I feel bad for married Latin Priests who have to labour in the current system; it's just not set up to accomodate them or their families.

Augustine

Dear Augustine,

Well, I noticed you are a different sort of Catholic, the committed, traditional kind!

I don't disagree with your interpretive paradigm nor with the majority of your conclusions.

Whatever you have been told, as someone who is most familiar with the Eastern Catholic priesthood, and who has 14 married priests and two monks in the family, I can tell you that there always were and are celibate Eastern Catholic parish priests around.

And we have Religious Orders who serve our parishes as well.

My main difficulty is when the argument is posited that mandatory priestly celibacy is for the Latin Rite, other Rites can follow their tradition.

I agree with each quote you bring forward about the beauty of celibacy.

Yet, the sum total of them all cannot support "mandatory" priestly celibacy.

It is a church rule that can be changed by the church at any time.

And if the Latin Church wants to keep it, I have no argument against that.

I do see thousands of priests leaving to get married, parishes with EEM's etc.

But I trust the Latin Church to work that out.

It is my Latin friends and neighbours, all of whom are very traditional in outlook, who are nervous when the scandal involving the ideological pedophile occurs and the culprit is protected for years, while another priest who, this past Latin Easter, talked about a married Latin priesthod, and was, nine days later, summarily reprimanded by the same Archdiocese.

Again, that is not my affair, but that is what I am being told by my Latin brothers and sisters - whatever.

But I think it is unfair for any Latin Catholic to maintain that its inner discipline concerning mandatory priestly celibacy is something specific to the Latin Church and doesn't apply elsewhere.

In fact, we Eastern Catholics have had enormous problems with having Latin discipline imposed on us for various reasons, even to the point of being told that celibacy is something specific to the priestly calling etc.

But defending mandatory priestly celibacy is now the very LEAST of the worries of the Latin Church.

I pray for the Latin Church in this time of inner crisis.

Why it is a problem now is anyone's guess.

But what is certain is - that it is.

Dominus Vobiscum,

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

Yes, the formal rubrics for married Eastern priests state that the priest may not even sleep in the same room as his wife the day before serving the Divine Liturgy, under pain of sin.

Ok, this may be one of those cases of jumping in to the conversation at just the wrong time and getting totally the wrong impression from it, or this may simply be a case of me revealing my total ignorance of the Eastern Rites, but how does this work having Mass every day???

Also:

According to the canons, laity, like Priests, are forbidden to excuse themselves from Communion during Mass. If they do, they must give a reason, otherwise face excommunication. These are the teachings of the ancient canons of the Councils recognized by both East and West.


Shoot. I'm actually out of time right now. Gotta get to Mass. I'll be back to ask for some clarification on this as soon as I can.

Peace,

Greg

I suggest that no one should get hung up on the canons regarding when a priest may be intimate with his wife. These canons are from a time when the Church had an attitude that sex, even within marriage, was something unholy. Today the Church has a much better theology of intimacy within marriage and clearly teaches that it is a holy thing. This is a much healthier attitude and the reason why the earlier canons have fallen into disuse.

Before continuing a discussion on this topic one should seek a ruling from one's bishop whether he applies such canons to his clergy and, if yes, exactly what behavior he expects from his clergy and what the underlying theology regarding it is. I suggest this because it seems like this thread is discussing history as if it were current reality. If anyone wishes to discuss a theology of abstinence by the clergy prior to celebrating the Divine Liturgy perhaps it should be looked at not in the form of something less than holy but rather from the point of view in which we fast from good things.

>>>If it is faulty, then the sensibility of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers, and Saints is "faulty". I think they understand human nature far better than we do.

>>>That canons are not being enforced, does not mean they are wrong, or somehow lacking.

The strictures arose later in the Church, with the influence of dualist heresies like the Manicheans, who had profound influence on St. Augustine, for instance. The Bible knows no such stricture against sex--in fact St. Paul tells married couples not to abstain too long!

You also don't seem to understand the concept of an Eastern Canon--perhaps you are thinking in Latin terms with "dispensations" being the exception to the rule. Eastern Canons, however, are guidelines (albeit serious ones) that can be enforced strictly, moderately, or not enforced. The word for strictness is "akreveia" and the word for moderation is "ekonomia". The bishop, who inherits the power to bind and loose, can exercise these principles within his diocese. Please read "Vested in Grace: Priesthood and Marriage in the Christian East" by Joseph Allen (published 2001) for a great review of all this.

in Christ,

anastasios

Dear Administrator,

That was precisely my point with Augustine.

The same Canons he and others like him invoke regarding married priests and the liturgy ALSO applied equally to the laity and these canons have been interpreted variously by the Church and bishops over time within specific pastoral contexts.

But something tells me this doesn't wash with our friend, Augustine.

Your point is excellent, especially since the Canon in question is repeated in every Priest's Sluzhebnyk even today.

Alex

+JMJ+

I have continued to monitor this thread and feel I can remain silent no longer. There are just several things that need to be addressed.

Augustine:

Well done. I agree entirelly, the NO crowd is in a severe crisis thus my adherence to the Pian Liturgy. (From this 18 year old, let it be known that the Traditional Latin Mass is not just for those who can remember it from their youth.)

Your posts Augustine are brilliant and well informed. We could use a thousand Latin Catholics as committed to our traditions as you.

Alex:

It is indeed a problem that the Latin Tradition of clerical celibacy has been forced on Eastern Catholics. I go so far as to say it is a sin on our part. But for you to try and force your tradition of married clergy on us is no different. It is a Byzantinization of the Latin Rite and I will not stand for it.

As for a "lack of vocations" and use of EEM's at Mass, see my earlier post about the Lack of Catholicism in the modern Latin Rite. IF the Bishops want more priests, they will get rid of EEM's at Mass, make the priest face the altar, bring back altar rails, bring back incence and chant, bring back all male altar servers, bring back benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Stations of the Cross, and Rosaries. If the Bishops don't want more priests, then they will soldier on in the "reformed" Latin Rite. Either way Tradition will win out in the end. Trads have a ration of 1.3 seminarians to every 1 seminarian in the NO seminaries. Who do you think will win out in the end especially since by 2005 it will be 1.7 to every 1 and by 2010 it will be 2.2 to every one. We can have the NO with all its horrible neoprotestant faults or we can have the Tridentine Latin Mass (properly called the Pian or Gregorian Mass).

Joe Zollars

+JMJ+

Because of the over abundant lack of respect for anything to do with Latins from the Byzanteens on this site, I have decided to leave permanently. I have realized that there is nothing within Byzantine Catholicism that would ever make me want to switch rites. I spend too much time defending the Catholic Church from Protestants and other heretics to spend time defending the Latin Rite from other Catholics.

Joe Zollars

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Johanam ]

Dear Johanan,

I apologise, Friend (may I still call you that?), for even suggesting that I wished to impose married clergy on your Church!

I don't remember if I did, and when I would have been perceived as doing it.

I believe I maintained that it was up to the Latin Church alone to decide this issue for itself.

And that the universal Church had the same discipline at one time allowing married priests - and originally bishops too.

On this, all Catholics are agreed, as it is the truth.

The fact that the Latin Church today has married priest, converts from other groups, is, well, a fact.

And if, as I said, the Latin Church allows married Protestant clergy to become married Catholic clergy, that MUST mean that marriage is not an impediment to ordination to the Latin priesthood.

And yet, at no time did I say that the Latin Church should impose a married priesthood.

Imposing is not the Eastern way to begin with.

As for our friend Augustine (may I call you that?), my only points to him were that mandatory priestly celibacy is not commanded anywhere in Scripture or Tradition, apart from the Latin church rule. Please someone show me where MANDATORY, imposed clerical celibacy is promoted by Scripture and I will submit!

That is not to say it isn't valid for the Latin Church.

Augustine also maintained some points that seemed to suggest that we have no celibate clergy because they are all married, and, frankly, that simply is not so. In addition to what he hears from others, he could spend some time in a Ukrainian Eparchy or speak to a bishop or someone about it.

Again, I apologize for upsetting you.

But if you could show me where, in what I've said, I am guilty of the charges you lay before me, I will repent of them.

As for calling ourselves Catholic, we don't just call ourselves Catholic, but have the Martyrs to back up our Catholic commitment.

As for the NO, there are many who are great Catholic Christians among them and, as I understand it, the Tridentine Rite is not to deprecate the NO in any way, in accordance with the Will of Holy Church and the Holy Father.

In Domino,

Alex

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Christos Voskrese!
Vostinnu Voskrese!

As a Latin, I have to agree with our friend Alex and even rush to his defense. He has been nothing but respectful of our Latin traditions in every post I've ever read of his. He always asks questions on points he does not understand and never judges the differing traditions. Indeed,in the past couple months of lurking, Alex's posts have taught me much about being a true follower of Christ, not so much in doctrine and dogma but in his thoughtful, often humourous, and always humble missives and musings.

And the fact still remains. There ARE married Latin priests, but, of course, these are the exceptions (rare ones at that!) rather than the rule. But to many a "traditionalist" Latin, there are no such things as exceptions. And before I'm pegged as a "neo-modernist Novus Ordo flunkie" (as I have been called once before), I attend an Ecclesia Dei indult Mass most every Sunday, that is when I don't go to the Divine Liturgy! Some may call me a traditionalist (from the liberal side), some a conservative (from the middle ground), and others even a liberal (from the traditionalist side), but I prefer the one label that fits me: Catholic.

God bless,
mikey.

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your kindness and generosity!

Yes, I love the Latin West and I find so many inspiring devotions and traditions that I've adopted as my own (but please let's keep this to ourselves, some people here might not understand this ).

And I think that the rich patrimony of the Latin Church is something that deserves to be studied to understand, as much as possible, its genius and beauty.

What got me into trouble with the Tridentine crowd is my questioning the "mandatory" nature of clerical celibacy.

I don't question church discipline, only insofar as this pertains to the Eastern Churches.

And I have only suggested that the Latin Church already has married priests, so celibacy isn't really a barrier to ordination for married candidates there either or at least in those exceptions.

Again, if I have given offense in any way in this respect, I apologise and withdraw anything of the sort.

It was not my intention at any time to give such offense.

Thank you for your kindness, once again.

Alex