But the simple fact of the matter is that it has. And the apostle Paul (I'm just the messenger), makes quite clear that there are certain circumstances in life in which, for the sake of the greater good, we can (and sometimes should) allow ourselves to be wronged...As I recall, Jesus said something similar (along the lines of turning the other cheek?).
Not so that the feelings of the one striking you are to be spared.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Your misunderstanding of this teaching is troubling when used to justify the perpetuation of a great wrong.
Sorry, what you keep missing is the fact that I don't want the ban perpetuated.
This is an exhortation that is restricted to appropriate particular moments - usually temporary moments. It isn't meant to encourage any individual or group of individuals to be perpetual doormats or "second class citizens."
Nor is it meant to justify striking people, but you use it as such.
[/quote]
I don't. You're not listening to me, brother.
I see it in the opposite direction. It's precisely the spiritual health of Roman Catholics that concerns me simply because it would seem to be most at risk with a sudden reversal of this decades old ban.
You keep making this the priority with no explanation why it should be...[/quote]
I've explained more than once why it should be - Roman Catholics have a weaker, more "anemic", if you will, patrimony and, with it, faith. My experiences with the Byzantine Church strongly suggest to me that they, on the other hand, can bear with injustice just a little bit longer much better than Roman Catholics can bear a sudden and significant shift in their perspective on the priesthood. That's why my concern is predominantly for Roman Catholics - because (in my mind at least) they're weaker creatures.
and I keep pointing out that the commission of North American Catholic and Orthodox bishops (not to mention Pope John Paul II) say exactly the opposite: Eastern Catholics living the fullness of their patrimony is not a risk, not a scandal, not a threat, but a BLESSING to the Catholic communion of churches. There is no equivocation.
And what you're not hearing me say for some reason is that I completely agree. I'd say that again, but if you're not hearing it the first four or five times...?
Were the introduction of that patrimony as dire as you imagine, you'd think that they would include mention if it in their official recommendation, wouldn't you?
For the final time, it's not the introduction of the patrimony itself that's the concern - it's re-introducing it with a flash, rather than easing into it.
Should the commission have spoken to the risks associated with reintroducing the patrimony too quickly if there are/were any? Not necessarily, no. Again, they're recommendation is that the full patrimony should be restored and they're right.
They made no mention of how quickly that patrimony should be restored.
And they made their recommendation to Rome, whom everyone knows does not ever do
anything quickly. Therefore, it's not hard to imagine this commission thinking to themselves, "Well, what we recommend is xyz...Here's to hoping it actually happens some time this century."
That fellow Catholics would openly call for us to hide the righteous and blessed fulness of our faith for ANY reason is truly, truly sad.
...Yeah? Indeed! Which is exactly why the ban is in the process of being demolished as we speak. Praise God for His grace.
God bless you.
