|
0 members (),
1,181
guests, and
74
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
That may be, but association with Opus Dei somewhat guarantees a very narrow viewpoint, to my way of thinking.
Many years,
Neil I would describe OD viewpoint as "ultramontanist". OD always thinks what the Pope thinks. Or at least this is what they're trying to accomplish.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208 |
I don't cotten to hardly any of that Opus Dei stuff...as erudite as Fr. Tauze undoubtedly is, his remarks betray that he might be a bit short on ecclesiology.
Just another vexatious expression of the fantasy that somehow the way things are done in the Latin Church is paradigmatic for all the Churches in the Catholic Communion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
That may be, but association with Opus Dei somewhat guarantees a very narrow viewpoint, to my way of thinking. OD always thinks what the Pope thinks. Or what OD thinks the Pope should think. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
Interestingly Dave--he's the same guy who wrote the "piece" I posted on the thread about the pope sending the patriarch birthday greetings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
Or what OD thinks the Pope should think.
Many years,
Neil Whatever it is now, looking at the history of Opus Dei reveals rather mirroring the attitude of currently reigning Pope than one organizational line, consistent in time no matter who is the Pope now. (But the question is, how much does this particular priest speak for himself, and how much for Opus Dei).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
Like I alluded earlier this morning in another post, each 'side' has their own self-styled 'apologists.' For example, the Latin Church has Opus Dei, the Ecumenical Patriarch has to deal with SOME of the Athonite monasteries and Elders. Yet, the work of the consultations continue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,328 Likes: 95
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,328 Likes: 95 |
Is it any wonder people get to the point they just want to head for the sidelines and throw up their hands?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
It has been related to me by old-timers that when Greek Catholic parishes split in the 1930's that as many people who left the Church to join the Orthodox Church simply left completely. I know that was true where I am from from a review of the metrical books, which stayed with the parish as it transitioned from Greek Catholic to Orthodox following litigation.(one of the few that went in that direction.....) I often wonder how we don't all manage to scare away potential converts with the harsh triumphalism exhibited by many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
An informative and excellent post from Stuart, who is on a self imposed hiatus for the remainder of Lent..this was sent to me as a private message. I have his permission to post it:
The problem here is wishful thinking that passes as scholarship. We know nothing--nothing--about the discipline of the early primitive Church. We do know that in the area where the Church first arose--the Near East, Anatolia and Greece--married clergy were (and remain) the rule, even from the earliest times.
The first we hear about celibate clergy in the West is in some fourth century local councils. We know that local Western councils continued to legislate for celibate clergy (including both the diaconate and subdiaconate), which, of course, indicates that the previous rulings were not being observed. We know that there were not only married Western priests down through the the 11th century, but that there were also married bishops (generally before the 5th century) and even a married Pope or two.
From all this, we can conclude that, whatever it is, mandatory clerical celibacy was not the rule of the primitive Church, let alone apostolically ordained. It is merely a discipline of the Western Church that evolved over time as a result of attitudes and events within the Western Church. The validity of the Eastern discipline is in no way dependent on the approval or sanction of the Western Church, and vice versa.
If the preservation of the Western discipline is dependent on the suppression of the Eastern discipline within the Eastern Catholic Churches, then the problems of the Western Church are far more grave than people realize.
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
Stuart,
Well said - especially on the last sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7 |
Both celibacy and married clerical states have their Sacred Tradition and historicity. I don't know why either side feels the urge to push onto the other (in the modern age, the celibate Latin side pushing its practice onto everyone else). All Churches - East, West, Oriental, CofE - have always had both married and celibate clergy. All have unanimously abandoned the Tradition of married bishops.
Among orders, the East generally sees the monastic as the one in whom Christ resides most fully; which is why the bishops are supposed to be selected from among these - as the bishop most represents Christ in his person after Episcopal ordination.
The West - due to limited married clergy - started to regard all its priestly clergy as monastic in some degree, even extending this view to the deaconate and sub-deaconate. As the Bishop most fully represents Christ, the priest should (at time, "must") most fully represent the bishop.
There are logical arguments for celibate clergy - all of the reasons that we have for a celibate episcopate are nearly equally applicable to the priesthood. The arguments for married clergy are just as logical and Sacred Tradition speaks clearly.
The dumbest argument I've read, now repeatedly, is the one about how the newly ordained bishop lived in continence from his wife - I've never seen any merit to this statement, nor proof of the claim, yet I've heard it repeated numerous times. I am sure there are examples of newly ordained bishops choosing to live in celibacy post-ordination, but I would hardly call that universal - nor should it necessarily apply to priests...
Anyhow, my 2cents..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83 |
I don't think Rorate is endorsing the theologian's view in the article. In fact, most likely the opposite. They're very supportive of the Eastern Catholic Churches. But, I believe at least one person involved with the blog is actually a member of this forum and may be along shortly to clarify their position. The following is posted on behalf of Carlos Antonio Palad at his request... "I left ByzCath a few months ago so I can no longer directly reply to those wondering about my opinion. Permit me to state that I have always been supportive of the Eastern Catholic Churches, as many of my posts on Rorate will show. I also have a generous opinion of the Orthodox Churches and I normally refrain from targeting them with polemic phrases, although I must state my belief that I do think that they are in error.
However, please bear in mind that there are several contributors to Rorate. New Catholic is the owner of the blog and posts regularly, while I contribute frequently. Jordanes is more active in the combox responding to the comments, while Mornac and Bonetus post on occasion. We do not interfere with each others' posts and opinions, and we have different opinions on certain matters, so I don't think it would be unfair to characterize this or that stance as being that of Rorate as a whole. We are, indeed, united in our promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional theology of the Catholic Church. How the individual posters on Rorate go about that is entirely their responsibility.
Thanks."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
I have found an interesting comment on the aforementioned Rorate Caeli blog about married couples living in continence: Blogger Jordanes said...
The Eastern Church has always taught (as did the Roman Church once upon a time) that Mary and Joseph were merely betrothed, not married.
If they teach that, then they are teaching something false. As shown above, the Scriptures explicitly say that St. Joseph took his wife to himself. It simply is not true that St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin never proceeded past the betrothal. He took her into her home and accepted her as his wife in the fullest sense save all but conjugal relations.
Hymnes to the Theotokos claim time and time again that she is a "bride unwed."
That means she is perpetually a virgin, not that she was not St. Joseph's lawful bride.
Research a little more into the ancient rite of betrothal Jordanes and what that meant to the Jews.
Well, I've studied and written research papers on the Jewish rite of betrothal or Kiddushin, as well as the Nissuin rite or hachnashah -- the Gospel refers to both stages of Jewish marriage.
Also read the proevangelium of St. James (where we get the names of Mary's parents), to get a better understanding of the Theotokos.
The Protevangelion is a mix of authentic traditions and unfounded legends and inventions (such as, among several other things, Zacharias being one of the High Priests, and mentioning another supposed High Priest named Samuel -- names that do not appear in that period in the succession of high priests, and anyway St. Luke says Zacharias was only a priest of the Abijah division, not the High Priest). While it contains some authentic extrabiblical traditions, it does not supercede what the Gospel says, where we read that St. Joseph took the Blessed Virgin, his betrothed, into his house -- something that was never permitted without the completion of the betrothal. All in the neighborhood also understood and accepted the relationship of the Holy Couple as fully husband and wife, not merely betrothed and awaiting the time when they could lawfully dwell together under the same roof.
Jordanes,
I would also point to Esther 2:7 for another "husband/wife" relationship as understood in biblical terms.
Esther 2:7 shows that Mordecai adopted his younger cousin Esther as his own daughter after she had been orphaned. Mordecai did not in any sense marry his adopted daughter.
Also Rachel and Jacob Gen 29:21 were espoused yet she was already called "wife." The law of betrothal is mentioned in Deut 22: 23-29
Yes, a betrothal counted as a marriage, and required a bill of divorcement (get) to break. That is why St. Matthew refers to Mary as "wife" of St. Joseph even before their Nissuin -- which St. Matthew also mentions.
This is what the Scriptures teach and what the Church maintains as well. Like it or not, the Church really does recognise Josephite marriages. Another blogger wrote: In monasteries this is not the case. St. John of Kronstadt did serve liturgy daily and married in order precisely to be ordained a parish priest. However, his presbytera agreed prior to their marriage that they would live a chaste life. He died a virgin. So, if the Church doesn't see married couples living in continence wrong, and even allows married couple to voluntarily agree for continence even before marriage, this may give some support for the thesis that the Apostles were indeed living in continence with their wives. This opinion is common among the Latins. Also, I would ask you as Easterners, because this looks interesting, do the Eastern Churches really teach that Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Another blogger wrote:
[quote]In monasteries this is not the case. St. John of Kronstadt did serve liturgy daily and married in order precisely to be ordained a parish priest. However, his presbytera agreed prior to their marriage that they would live a chaste life. He died a virgin. I do not know if she made a prior agreement to live a chaste life but she was desparately unhappy in the marriage because of this aspect and tried several times to obtain a divorce from the Holy Synod but was denied.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
[quote=PeterPeter] Another blogger wrote: In monasteries this is not the case. St. John of Kronstadt did serve liturgy daily and married in order precisely to be ordained a parish priest. However, his presbytera agreed prior to their marriage that they would live a chaste life. He died a virgin. I do not know if she made a prior agreement to live a chaste life but she was desparately unhappy in the marriage because of this aspect and tried several times to obtain a divorce from the Holy Synod but was denied. I think that non-consummation is a basis for annulment in the West.
|
|
|
|
|
