|
0 members (),
1,799
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 |
Ot'ets Nastoiatel':
One of my Spiritual Directors, who taught Latin as well, always used "Salve" never "Ave." Thus, my reason for correction. You really need to stop verbally assailing me, I am but one man. We can disagree without becoming abusive.
Unless, you are willing to read the Canons of the Council of Nicea, you will not understand where I am coming from. Both the East and the West have their understanding of these "Canons" differently, and have developed around them. I do not even "think" that Patriarch Bartholomew would agree with you on the Ancient Practice of the West. As for Africa, some priests and bishops have been excommunicated because they married. Let the West decide for herself what her Ancient Practices are, because no faithful Roman Catholic Priest would say that a married priesthood in the West was normative at any time in history.
I do not even "think," you know the practical outcome in the West of making priestly celibacy optional. My dear brother in Christ, Peace be with you! You may have your opinion, but may it be always shaped and uttered in Christian Charity. As for being a Roman Catholic, I do not like your tone with me.
Your unworthy brother in Chris;
Sean Forristal
As one who has read Catullus, I never want to read him again; just think about his pederasty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1 |
Sean be careful how you address people - are you aware that Ot'ets Nastoiatel' is a priest ? Here we are very careful to address people using their correct title ! I'm certain that o. Nastoiatel' knows more about the Canons of the Council of Nicea than you have ever done . As to your comment I do not even "think," you know the practical outcome in the West of making priestly celibacy optional. My dear brother in Christ, Peace be with you! You may have your opinion, but may it be always shaped and uttered in Christian Charity. As for being a Roman Catholic, I do not like your tone with me. words fail me 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32 |
Sean
be careful how you address people - are you aware that Ot'ets Nastoiatel' is a priest ?
Here we are very careful to address people using their correct title ! He addressed him as Father Superior (parish Pastor) which is also his screen name. That's certainly respectful; what's the issue?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
To All: Here is the Third Canon of the Council of Nicea: Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt. This quote came from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htmTake it for what it is worth. Our Lady's slave even if one is a priest they are still obliged, and more obliged, to be moderate in speaking and writing. Peace to all and to all a good night! Your unworthy brother in Christ: Sean Forristal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
The canon refers to men who were living with so-called "spiritual sisters" who turned out to be pretty carnal. It did not refer to presbyters or even bishops with wives, since these were not only common among the ranks of the Fathers at Nicaea, they continued to be common for centuries thereafter--in both the West and the East.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
Your quote of the Canon 3 of Nicaea [ faculty.cua.edu] is missing one important word. THE great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion. As Dr.Anthony Dragani says on the topic: This particular canon was introduced to prevent clerics from engaging in scandalous activities. The very term "subintroducta" indicates a woman who is living as his personal disciple, under the pretense of piety. Apparently some clerics would bring these young women into their homes, and mentor them in something other than the Christian faith. East2West [ east2west.org] This cannon if forbidding non-married women (or women married to someone else) from living with, as disciples, Priests (or Bishops) unless they were his mother, sister, or aunt. It has nothing to do with the wife of a priest or bishop. Also, why debate this? The cannon law of the Church makes it crystal clear that married and celibate priests are an Apostolic Tradition. 373. Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor. (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
Last edited by Nelson Chase; 03/07/14 06:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
Married priesthood was normative everywhere between the 50 A.D. to 300 A.D. The earliest enactment on the subject is that of the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy upon the three higher orders of the clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons. If they continue to live with their wives and beget children after their ordination they are to be deposed. This would seem to have been the beginning of the divergence in this matter between East and West. Married clergy in the latin church was never normative after about 450 A.D. This is why St. Patrick was able to have lineage from a priest. Many of the married priests after about 400 A.D. in the west were ordained later in life and were continent and chaste for the remainder of their life. This is the main way that a married priesthood survived for one or two centuries longer in the west, until even this became rare. This is one of the reasons why this is a confusing subject, partisians on both sides twist and disagree with facts to make them appear to support opposing views. Whether married or celibate clergy are ordained does not especially concern me, ultimately, whatever allows them to do this: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7348/12959196934_4b105d7892_n.jpg [ Linked Image] Whatever allows more of this, is bound to be good.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
I think that the best prospect the Latin Church has for encouraging and strengthing the celibate priesthood is in the canons regular, and their offshoots, the dominicans and mendicant orders.
Celibacy is strengthened in a group with a rule, than in one lone priest or two off by themselves in a rectory.
If I were to predict the future, I would predict that either
#1 - Celibacy will continue as it has for the last few centuries, and even the recent evolution of married deacons will be eliminated...
or #2 - Celibate priests will survive through canons and monastic/mendicant orders and the rest of the latin rite priests will be married much like Eastern Orthodox and some Eastern Catholic priests are today.
I highly doubt that the current scenario will continue as it is. In fact the current scenario can not continue, because as Canon Dr. Ed Peters notes, the canon laws for the latin church conflict with each other, do not currently fully support the practice of married men being ordained as deacon (and remaining with their wife). What exists now is an experimental view that is confusing and inconsistent.
I don't care whether #1 or #2 prevails either. They are both a means to an end, even if I may find one form more flawed than another, as a lay person I dont much care, and remain obedient to whatever the hierarchy decides.
Last edited by Xristoforos; 03/07/14 08:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2 |
Sometimes I wish we were Amish: I can think of at least one person who could benefit from a prolonged period of SHUNNING! The charge? Completely vitiating the podvig of Clean Week!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
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 The OP may find this article of interest, I apologize as I've posted it before but not on this thread and for the fact that my brother is the focus of the presentation. Like Orthodox Catholic, I too come from a family of married priests - ones who left the Eastern Catholic church in the 20th century when MANDATORY celibacy was imposed by diktat from the Congregation for the Oriental Churches at the prodding of Irish Catholic bishops in North America. This action had the consequence of ending the ancient lineage of countless families, like that of Orthodox Catholic, who could trace clergy in their heritage for centuries - perhaps before the Unia when the eastern Slavs were united in Orthodoxy. I wholeheartedly agree, 100%, with Orthodox Catholic's argument and examples. In all sincerity, I urge Sean to read this article, follow the links and perhaps he will gain a fuller understanding of this issue and why it provokes much consternation among both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics when the Latin justifications for MANDATORY celibacy are bandied about. "Mandated Celibacy Among US Eastern Catholic Priests Theme of Seminar in Rome" http://acrod.org/news/releases/rome-conf...arch_highlight1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569 Likes: 2 |
I, too, use 'Salve' or 'Salvete' when addressing my students. Whenever I read the genial Catullus I never think of his all-too-human-foibles, especially considering that he lived before the age of Grace; but I extend the same forbearance to Lord Byron, W.H. Auden, P.I.Tchaikovsky and Benjamin Britten to mention but a few sinful fellow pilgrims. As our great and deeply loved holy father Pope Francis put it, "Who am I to judge?" Who indeed, since of all sinners I am the first? May I gently suggest that you read the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete. Presbytera Frederica Mathews-Green prepared a lovely edition, segmenting the peerless compunctionate prayer-poem into forty units with explanations on facing pages. May I add the humble suggestion that you fast from this forum until Pascha, if not Pentecost, and spend the Springtime of the Soul in divesting yourself of the old man and putting on the New. I will join you in this podvig to achieve the prophecy of the Holy Forerunner and Baptist of the Lord, John: "He must increase and I must decrease." (Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui. Εκεινον δει αυξανειν, εμε δε ελαττουσθαι.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 53 |
Salve Pater Ot'ets Nastoiatel':
I do not know how you came to be hostile to me, but accept my apology for any felt wrong I have done to you. From your dialogue I was getting the impression that you were from the East Coast of the US and then glanced at your place of residence; my suspicions confirmed. Know that I am a Vulga-German and have some Russian aspects too. As for your shunning remark, I will forgive you as people from the East Coast have a tendency to extreme expressions. My former SD was from Paterson, NJ and showed it.
As for continuing to write in this forum, I am commended to do so by my SD and father. There are many facets to my reasoning and am not ignorant of history in the Church and out. I do not have any intention to see priestly celibacy mandated in the East, but any intention to see this mandate end in the West end is not from the Mind or Heart of the Church. There are many young priests that have embraced celibacy and are happy in it. Let us not add any further problems for Rome, for she is already overwhelmed.
You are in my prayers. Always know that I have suffered greatly for the Faith since my junior year in high school and have been dealing with severe illness for many years. Your comments have not been any help to my already low opinion of priests; two of them in my life committed great acts against Christian chastity, and others have been far from charitable. I do not judge them, but get a feeling that priests need much reform these days. God bless you, your ministry, and your family!
Your unworthy son in Christ;
Sean Forristal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
I do not have any intention to see priestly celibacy mandated in the East, but any intention to see this mandate end in the West end is not from the Mind or Heart of the Church. There are many young priests that have embraced celibacy and are happy in it. Let us not add any further problems for Rome, for she is already overwhelmed. I respect this position. The Latin Church, and many of our churches, have a headache with trying to maintain more orthodox teaching lately, trying to get the average lay people to go along with this (and often times certain clergy too). While we as eastern catholics or eastern orthodox might view the embrace of a married priesthood to be ideal for the Latin Church as well, it is debateable whether it is ideal for them to embrace it very quickly. I think the main reason they would embrace it in the near future would be out of desperation to have enough ordinations. But whether that degree of desperation is going to materialize is uncertain, or at least I do not know the statistics. So my point is that, it makes perfect sense from the eastern point of view to promote this practice in the west. But for the average Roman Catholic who has never even heard of this ancient custom, it may be confusing. The average western point of view of whose who are not scholars tends to view married clergy as part of protestantism. Until this protestant view, and really ALL protestant influence and connotation is neutralized, it is somewhat dangerous to argue for it. To this day I still encounter intelligent respected Roman Catholics who show bias toward Eastern Orthodox by describing them as "protestants with valid sacraments" and dismiss them as not much better than protestants, which I find to be a horrible point of view. When I mention that they have a unity undreamed of by protestants the response is typically "I see no true unity in a group of national churches who hate seem to hate each other". A profound amazing unity in belief, liturgy and essentials seems irrelevant to them. The Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi aspect is not really respected. While they typically think better of the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome, I can't help but feel that there is a connatation made between them. A subtle way of writing off eastern catholics as "not catholic enough" (once a schismatic always a schismatic). To me it is ridiculous. As long as this view is floating around, this idea of married men ordained as priests is going to have limited respect. We have a long way to go. Knowledge of the eastern churches is far greater among the west today, and there is serious improvement but old suspicions and stereotypes remain. So I see all the sides. theoretically I agree with a married priesthood, in the long term, I like it. But on the other hand, whatever helps the latins get over their "identity crisis" and become more healthy, is fine with me. If celibate clergy strengthen them, so be it. It will be very good. This is all very culturally complicated. It isn't necessarily logical.
Last edited by Xristoforos; 03/08/14 02:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
As for bias that the Byzantines hold against the Latins: Much of it lingers from the Quinisext Council: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Quinisext_CouncilTwo hundred and eleven bishops attended the council, all from the Eastern Roman Empire. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria/Crete, however, belonged to the Church of Rome and claimed that he represented the Roman Church, though no evidence exists of his right to make this claim. In fact, Pope Sergius of Rome refused to sign the canons, citing them as “lacking authority”, when they were sent to him for signature. The Western Church never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, although later statements by some of the bishops of Rome, notably Popes Constantine and Hadrian I, seem to show an acceptance that could be summed up as expressed by Pope John VII: that he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome. The Orthodox Churches consider this council as ecumenical and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.
Many of the canons were reiterations of previously passed canons. However, most of the new canons exhibited an inimical attitude towards churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and "every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned" (Fortescue).
Among the practices of the Western Church thus condemned were the practice of celebrating liturgies on weekdays in Lent (rather than having pre-sanctified liturgies); of fasting on certain Saturdays during the year; of omitting the "Alleluia" in Lent; of depicting Christ as a lamb; and the discipline of celibacy for all bishops, priests and deacons. This last merits further elaboration: not content merely to condemn the discipline of celibacy in the case of priests and deacons, the Council declared that anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife is to be excommunicated. Likewise any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained is also to be excommunicated. When you take this into account and how these charges are held onto today, you see that this prejudice goes both ways. While I have sympathy for the ideas of unified clergy discipline, unity in the priesthood is surely ideal and reasonable, but the rest of their condemnations are preposterous. I understand that for instance, in Western Rite Orthodox Church it is considered wrong to replicate iconography like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/7757630002/in/photostream/ What's wrong with this otherwise beautiful canonical fresco? The Lamb of God. The Lamb of God is everywhere in most surviving latin iconography. Thus this is an unreasonable expectation and quickly serves to conform the Orthodox parishes that attempting to follow the latin rite to a byzantine practice. They cease to have historical latin iconography used as it was when West actually WAS regarded as "Orthodox". Is byzantinization much better than latinization? Maybe, but for the most part they're both wrong.
Last edited by Xristoforos; 03/08/14 02:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
Xristoforos' last two posts were two of the best I've read anywhere in awhile for speaking the truth regarding all apologia and polemic. Thank you. They point out how far apart east and west really are by virtue of their own mutual folly over the centuries.
|
|
|
|
|
