|
0 members (),
1,801
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
Maybe, some of my posts were a little over-the-top, but none were ill willed. Forgive me if I come across strong sometimes, this is due to my very lucid prose. Shall we start afresh now, I certainly hope so.
My hope is that by 2054 we will share full communion with the various Orthodox Churches and Christians. I hope that we can pave the way towards this unification by prayer, dialogue, personal sacrifices, and good-will. The hardest part of this desire is that I have met some Orthodox priest, who desire that the Catholic Church will have to come to them, namely their way or the highway. Hopefully, Patriarch Bartholomew and whichever current Pope is in Office will be able to bring about an initial communion and unity. May Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. John Chrysostom pray for this end!!!
Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
The hardest part of this desire is that I have met some Orthodox priest, who desire that the Catholic Church will have to come to them Sean: Christ is in our midst!! Welcome to the reality of seeing the Great Schism from the other side. There are Orthodox Christians who sincerely believe that it is the Latin Patriarch who left the communion of the Church in 1054 and the only way for communion to be restored is for his successor to come back. It comes hard for Western Catholics to see the world from another point of view of the same events. Point to ponder for Lent, perhaps. Renewing communion broken for almost 1000 years is not as simple as many Catholics think. It is not about stubbornness on one or both sides. It is about two parts growing apart for many years prior to Cardinal Humbert doing his rant in Constantinople and growing farther and farther apart ever since. His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew once said that we are "ontologically different" at this juncture. It might be well to try to understand where he comes from in making this statement as we study the history and try to walk toward the future. My posts in the Maronite thread seem to be a fairly accurate summary of many Orthodox Christians and many Eastern Catholics' position vis-a-vis the Western Catholic Church and full communion. I think it's fair for me to say that Latin assumptions and current practice are as much a hindrance to that full communion as much that has been argued over the past millenium. We--and I include myself in this--need to see the world through the eyes of our Eastern brethren, not by filtering it through our own prejudices, but truly through their eyes without prior judgments or assumptions. Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
Thank you Theophan (Bob) for your remarks. The Cardinal Humbert incident was horrible and done in a way that was far from Christian Charity or Truth. When he did this action there was no pope, and thus, he had no authority to make an excommunication valid. One especially poor aspect about this incident is that it was done during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Then the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the other legate from Rome, which turned an evil situation into a more evil situation. When I read about the whole incident in a book written by an Orthodox priest, he said that the Patriarch over-reacted, may be suspect of theological errors, and a generally prideful man. I am only repeating what I read in the book by an Orthodox priest, he may have been wrong, but he is my primary source on the subject.
"We--and I include myself in this--need to see the world through the eyes of our Eastern brethren, not by filtering it through our own prejudices, but truly through their eyes without prior judgments or assumptions."
I too agree with this statement and include myself. As a philosopher, when I read what His Holiness Bartholomew said that we are "onologically different," I wonder what he meant. Ontology is the Study of Being/Existence; thus, I wonder if he meant that due to all of the modernizing of the Roman Catholic Church, he feels that Roman Catholicism is a much different Church than in the past. Maybe, he sees weakness where Roman Catholicism was once strong; probably due to the radical experiments that have rocked the Western Church in the last 40+ years. Anyone's guess is as good as mine.
Theophan, if you have more quotes from Patriarch Bartholomew please share them with the rest of us. I like the approach to dialogue you have. Thank you and may God bless us all during Great Lent!
Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Unworthy Brother Sean,
What you write to defend mandatory celibacy is really just a man-made tradition that came into being at various historical points in the Latin West.
Again, no one is juxtaposing mandatory marriage for priests. As we have said, there will always be married and unmarried priests.
I am myself the grandson of a married Eastern Catholic priest. He married my grandmother who came from a line of 14 married EC priests (there was one celibate though). All 14 held doctorates in theology (including one I found online about St Josaphat). All had large families and many were arrested by the Soviets and died in Siberia (or thereabouts).
Our Confessor, Patriarch Joseph Slipyj was all for a celibate priesthood and he badgered my father, when he was in the seminary, to sign a document committing him to celibacy. My father wouldn't and eventually asked to be released from the seminary on the grounds of being badgered to death . . .
But when Patriarch Joseph was in Siberia, for 18 years, he saw what a tremendous support the priest's wife was and how married priests tended to stay true to the Catholic faith (in communion with Rome, in other words). This and other reasons led him to make a 180 degree change in favour of optional marriage for priests.
He even made a representation at the Vatican II Council on the matter.
Married priests have Presbyteras who are as pious and dedicated to parish AND mission work as any monastic missionary.
I know because I know what my grandmother, God rest her soul in peace, did. She worked tirelessly and often saved my grandfather, Father John, from embarrassment in his parish work.
She hid and fed countless children, including Jewish children, in her home and barn, protecting them from the Nazis.
She was almost shot by a German officer as she fed her own people taken prisoner by the Nazis (his commanding officer grabbed his arm as he was about to pull the trigger saying, "What are you doing, idiot?! She is feeding her own people . . ."
She protected Russian Orthodox aristocrats as they fled the Bolsheviks and said that they were a "completely different pair of galoshes . . ."
She survived the Bolshevik terror and was also almost shot in the head by one of them for refusing to get out of the line of fire when they put her house guests up against the wall to shoot one at a time.
When her daughter, at the age of sixteen, joined the Underground to fight the Soviets and was given a gun to assassinate a teacher in the village who was pro-communist, my grandmother took it away from her and said, "You are too young to be shooting anyone."
When the Underground put her on trial for disobeying orders, she looked them fiercely in the eye and said, "That is my daughter and she will not be shooting anyone. Shoot me, if you will."
She prayed for half an hour, on average, morning and night, said two Rosaries daily, including the Chaplet of the Holy Wounds of Christ at 3:00 pm daily without fail and attended daily Divine Liturgy when she could still walk by herself.
I could go on.
Wives of our Priests carry on a profound mission in the Body of Christ.
I think it is high time for the Roman Catholic Church to return to Apostolic tradition and allow for optional celibacy for their priests.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
The Confession of Saint Patrick
Book of Armagh (TCD MS 52); Cotton MS Nero E.I.
1. I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a priest, of the settlement [vicus] of Bannavem Taburniae; he had a small villa nearby where I was taken captive. I was at that time about sixteen years of age. I did not, indeed, know the true God; and I was taken into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of people, according to our deserts, for quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation. And the Lord brought down on us the fury of his being and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where I, in my smallness, am now to be found among foreigners.
2 And there the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that, even so late, I might remember my transgressions and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my insignificance and pitied my youth and ignorance. And he watched over me before I knew him, and before I learned sense or even distinguished between good and evil, and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son.
3 Therefore, indeed, I cannot keep silent, nor would it be proper, so many favours and graces has the Lord deigned to bestow on me in the land of my captivity. For after chastisement from God, and recognizing him, our way to repay him is to exalt him and confess his wonders before every nation under heaven.
4 For there is no other God, nor ever was before, nor shall be hereafter, but God the Father, unbegotten and without beginning, in whom all things began, whose are all things, as we have been taught; and his son Jesus Christ, who manifestly always existed with the Father, before the beginning of time in the spirit with the Father, indescribably begotten before all things, and all things visible and invisible were made by him. He was made man, conquered death and was received into Heaven, to the Father who gave him all power over every name in Heaven and on Earth and in Hell, so that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, in whom we believe. And we look to his imminent coming again, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to each according to his deeds. And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed, and we worship one God in the Trinity of holy name.
5 He himself said through the prophet: 'Call upon me in the day of' trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.' And again: 'It is right to reveal and publish abroad the works of God.'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
Sean, it shows that these topics relating to Eastern Catholic/Orthodox history are new to you. How lovely! "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." <-this prayer might be helpful. Probably reading the lives of the Popes from the 6th to 9th centuries might help you, they often had dinner guests who represented the Patriarch of Constantinople and had fun times together. These books are known as the liber pontificalis and exist in respected english translation editions. Liber pontificalis [ books.google.com] A good casual easy to read book that relates to the latin tridentine mass lectionary and contains sermons from the fathers of the church is this one: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Sunday%20Sermons%2004.pdf I think thats a good snapshot of the mostly harmonious theology shared by all the Fathers of the Church. However you will see gradually subtle differencee between the latin, greek, coptic and syriach ones, which foreshadow differences magnified later in time. Patristics it seems to me, is the key to reinviting everyone to share the Orthodox/Catholic faith again. As someone said "The Fathers know best" To see what happens when Patristrics becomes ignored...read here: http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-part-3-of-4/ It is the story of protestantism/nominalism/modernism (and the bibliography leads one to see how they all were inculcated within the latin catholic church of the 13th to 15th centuries.)
Last edited by Xristoforos; 03/05/14 11:21 PM. Reason: added liber link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
To All:
When desiring that the Roman Catholic Church adopt priestly celibacy as an option, in some ways you are in a paradox. You do not desire "Latinization," but in some way desire "Easternization," of the West. I would not say you are hypocrites, but maybe there is some inconsistency of thought on this subject.
Xristoforos, brought some interesting info. to this topic and thread; thank you. Since the Latin Church has maintained mandatory celibacy for over 1,000 years, changing this practice would only be an assent to the secular media and world; then they would be fueled to try to change other church teachings that they see as wrong. We in the Roman Catholic Church could really use our Eastern Catholic brethren to unify with us on this issue, while maintaining our different priestly traditions. Saying, "It is high time the Roman Catholic Church change this practice," is a little extreme. Let us walk together to preserve each others long held and treasured traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 88
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 88 |
Sean, it's not a paradox. All we are doing is suggesting that the Roman Church return to her ancient discipline of having married priests, confirming and communing infants, Communion in both kinds as the norm, and such.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
I agree with you Sean, this forum does have a bias toward the eastern tradition. Hmmm, but the funny thing is... Christianity always has had a slant toward the customs of where it began being preeminent. The liturgy of the churches in Jerusalem played an early role in influencing every other liturgy of the church. There are certain customs that are so profoundly different that it is hard to reconcile them when they appear to have too much divergence or opposite of each other. Ever compare St. Bernard theology of simplified cistercian architecture with that of the iconoclasts of the protestant and byzantine variety? They are much identical, yet St. Bernard is still a saint. But would we want his views to be normative for all parishes? No. And additionally the architectures of east and west do have some odd divergences, some of it has to be ignored and made the most of accepting. http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4088/5039024247_d83cfacc17.jpg Obviously a gothic or romanesque cathedral designed with iconoclastic tendencies to avoid fresco with little room for it on the walls, can't easily be made to harmoniously conform to additions of it without becoming odd looking. It's a good idea, but probably not as easy as it might seem. (And for that matter a number of greek orthodox churches on the west coast, and ukranian catholic and OCA on the east coast sometimes have odd modern architecture conflicts too!) Around the dioceses near Washington, DC there many more married former anglicans who've been ordained in the last 3 years than there are married eastern catholic priests who've been ordained. In the USA there's been over 300 former protestant ministers who've become married priests for the latin rite churches of the USA in the last 30 years. "When the Second Vatican Council renewed the Order of Deacons as a permanent part of the ordained ministry of the Catholic Church, it also permitted that married men might be ordained to this ministry. The result of this decision has been that over 90 percent of the more than 30,000 deacons around the world are married with families. More than 14,000 deacons—most of whom are married—live, work, and minister here in the United States. " I think that the most recent decisions of the Latin Church tend to lead to a bias toward married priests eventually becoming normative to begin with. I think the Latin Church hierarchy, which though led by the Holy Spirit, being human as well, has reaped what it has sowed, it creates changes and new rubrics and theological emphasis , and expects people to be content with all the things it didnt want to "slant a new emphasis" upon. The theology for the celibacy of the priest was the same for the celibacy of the deacon, weaken one and you destroy the other. Additionally the aspect of abstaining from both food and marital relations before serving at a divine liturgy (much less in receiving the eucharist) is absent from the current rules for diocesan married deacons as noted by Canonist Dr. Edward Peters. http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/01/30/the-controversies-of-the-permanent-diaconate/ Only a handful of the 300 "pastoral provision" married men ordained to the priesthood have any idea about this canon either. This wouldn't sit well with the thousands of teachings handed down in the historic western penitential books. The west wants ecumenism with the east , if the west wants peace, it can't very well demand the east change when it never changed. The one who has changed, if they want to be seen as kind, must let change occur naturally because it is good. Surely if the changes the latins have made are of such great benefit they would warrant an example for everyone. Think about it this way: Without the eastern church, there would be no western church, but without the western church, the eastern would still be. The pot is called the kettle black.
Last edited by Xristoforos; 03/06/14 11:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
The words of Rev. Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge will shed some light on things. Without weakening your own confidence in latin christianity, try to recognize the Orthodox perspective on it, it is a valuable perspective, if not to agree with , at least to apologize against : Q: As a theologian, you have often spoken on the problem of West and East's separation. Can we say that your conversion to Orthodoxy is the result of your meditation on this topic?
A: When I was in Greece and started turning towards Eastern Christianity, I began to perceive the schism between the East and the West very painfully. It stopped being an abstract theory or a plot in a Church history book, but rather something that was directly affecting my spiritual life. This is why the conversion to Orthodoxy started looking like a very logical step. In youth, I sincerely hoped that the union of the Western and the Eastern Christianity was possible. I was waiting for it to happen with all my heart. And I had some reasons to believe in it. At the Second Vatican Council, there were observers from the Russian Orthodox Church, including the current Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg and Ladoga Vladimir (Kotlyarov). At that time Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) was very active in international affairs. And many people thought that the two Churches were moving towards each other and would eventually meet at one point. It was my dream that was becoming more and more real. But as I was growing older and learning some things deeper, I stopped believing in the possibility of the reconciliation of two Churches in terms of the divine services and institutional unity. What was I to do? I could only go on searching for this unity on my own, individually, restoring it in one separate soul, mine. I could not do more. I just followed my conscience, and came to Orthodoxy.
Q: Isn't it too radical an opinion?
A: While still in Greece, being a Catholic, I realized that it was the West that separated from the East, not vice versa. At that moment, it was unthinkable for me. I needed time to understand and accept this. I cannot blame anyone, of course I can’t! We are talking about a whole big historic process, and we cannot say that this or that person is to blame for this. But facts remain facts: what we call Western Christianity today was born as a chain of ruptures with the East. These ruptures were the Gregorian reform, followed by the separation of the churches in the XI century, then the Reformation in the XV century, and finally the Second Vatican Council in the XX century. This is, surely, a very rough scheme, but I think it is correct on the whole.
Q: However, there is an opinion that the chain of these ruptures is a normal historic process because any phenomenon (and Christian Church is no exception) goes through its stages of development. What's the tragedy in that?
A: The tragedy is in the people. In a situation of radical, revolutionary events there always appear people who start to divide life into 'before' and 'after.' They want to start counting only from this new point as if everything that happened before had no meaning. When the future Protestants proclaimed the Reformation, I do not think they knew it would lead to the separation of the Western Church into two big camps. They did not realize it, they just acted. And they began to divide those around them into the healthy ones - those who accepted the Reformation - and the unhealthy, sick ones - the followers of Pope.
Moreover, history repeats itself: the same is happening now around the Second Vatican Council within the Roman Catholic Church. There are people who did not accept its decisions and people who consider it to be some kind of a starting point. And everybody reasons along those lines. A simple example: if in a conversation, someone mentions 'council' without any additional details, everybody automatically assumes that they are talking about the Second Vatican Council.
Q: What's your opinion on the modern liberal moods among Catholics?
A: I am very glad to have the opportunity to address myself to the Russian audience and say that you should not reduce all Catholics to one level. Among them are such who would like to be more secular, more liberal. It does not mean they are criminals, it's just their point of view on life. There are others, those who are fully dedicated to tradition. I would not call them traditionalists, because tradition itself is not so important to them. This is not an ancient folklore that one must nourish artificially and keep aswim. No! Tradition to them is what in every epoch ensured and still ensures live personal contact with Christ, everyday living in God's hands. As John the Theologian said, "That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3). I am sure that the position "there is God and there is me" is for heretics. For Christians, it is "God, me and everyone else." Everyone else is other believers, and those who for many centuries have preserved the faith for us. If people had not listened to other people so devotedly, if they had not written it down and had not passed it on, there would have been no New Testament. It means there would have been nothing...
Q: And what, in this case, should our attitude be to those who are not very dedicated to tradition?
A: We should not beat them in the face and of course we should not chase them out of the Church. Any person deserves Christian mercy. If I, being an Orthodox, saw a Catholic in an Orthodox church, I would like to approach him and tell him openly, softly, and confidentially, "Listen, brother, you might be interested to know that in the beginning we all crossed ourselves in this way: from right to left. Now everything has changed. No, I am not calling you to reconsider all your life and rush to the Orthodox Church. I just want you to know where things came from.
" from: From 'Orthodoxy and the World' www.pravmir.com [pravmir.com]
One Can't Learn to Pray Sitting in a Warm Armchair
By By Konstantin Matsan, Jan 26, 2011,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2 |
The early documents often quoted by Latins to justify the practice of clerical celibacy/continence applied to all clergy, including deacons! So what do you make of the numerous married deacons of Latin rite who continue to father children?
Secondly, your pseudo-history of celibacy won't stand up to the facts of history: namely, the rigorist tendency to impose celibacy/continence dates to well before the Fall of the Roman Empire and had nothing whatever to do with practical socio-economic conditions in the West.
Thirdly, celibacy was widely ignored precisely in "mission" lands.
Finally, the Russian Church evangelized Siberia and Russian America largely through the self-sacrificing efforts of its married clergy. St. Innocent of Alaska, who later became Metropolitan of Moscow, was one such married priest-missionary.
As an afterthought may I ask you to assess the enormous volume of your postings in such a short period of time. Reflect on the generally negative reactions on the part of so many of our forum members to your largely uninformed and self-serving blogs. Please consider fasting from this site until you have considerably more authentic experience of Eastern Christianity. Ave atque Vale! (With the emphasis on the 'Vale' as the 'atque' makes clear!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
In Anglicanorum Coetibus, all subsequent men that come from the families of the Anglican Ordinariates are to be celibate. In one of the Canons of the Council of Nicea, it speaks of clerics only living with women who are blood-relatives. This position is held in the Diadiche.
Please, I meant no offence, but if you hate "Latinization," then you should show the same respect to your brother Latin Catholics. I do not care about how many poor reactions I have received anymore, most of them presume that I have an ill-will towards the East and Eastern Catholics, which is hardly the truth. As to the East surviving without the West, you should grasp what happened under Soviet Marxism, with the Russian Orthodox Church forced underground. We must breathe with both lungs and I believe that Patriarch Bartholomew would not disagree. Telling me to leave was a testament of hate and a profound lack of Charity. What would a non-believer think of this comment? The saying is "SALVE atque Vale." Ave being used for royalty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2 |
Sorry, wannabe Latinist! As a professor of Latin and Greek for nearly half a century I assure you that the phrase is 'Ave atque Vale'. So it is used in Catallus' famous poem on the death of his brother; it is similarly quoted in Tennyson's poem on his visit to Sirmio (site of Catullus' villa). The red-herring about 'Salve' and 'Ave' only for royalty only serves to bring home my point: what you don't know is a LOT! Nor do I hate you and, indeed, cringe from the prospect of lacking charity, but, as they say, charity begins at home: can't you leave us in peace to air our own concerns among ourselves? Do I care about Anglicanorum Coetibus? No! Just as you didn't care about the gravamen of my argument in order to be able, illusorily in my opinion, to justify yourself and your egregious opinions. His dictis, please consider fasting from this forum until the parousia or Pascha, whichever comes later!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32 |
The saying is "SALVE atque Vale." Ave being used for royalty. ? Just consider, Salve Regina.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
Sean, it's not a paradox. All we are doing is suggesting that the Roman Church return to her ancient discipline of having married priests, confirming and communing infants, Communion in both kinds as the norm, and such. ... or at least be aware that these *really* were the ancient practices in both East and West. (Also the fact that even when it was mandated, there were still numerous times and places where the celibacy requirement was disregarded--somtimes secretly and sometimes quite openly. I understand this is the case in many parts of Africa even today.)
|
|
|
|
|
