Rome to US Eastern Catholics: New Priests Should “Embrace Celibacy”

[PJ]

DMD,

I see your "Why do the Popes keep appointing Latin-rite Italian cardinals to manage the Congregation for the Oriental Churches?" and raise you a "Why not abolish the Oriental Congregation altogether?" It is simply not needed.

I have no doubt that internal pressure within the Latin Church to get rid of mandatory celibacy is the driving reason behind the current situation for Eastern Catholic Churches. However, the Greek Catholics are the only ones pushing the issue. The Oriental Catholic Churches seem all to happy to have only celibates in the US. Indeed, the Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankars have adopted mandatory celibacy, and the Copts, Ethiopians and Syriacs seem to favor it. The Armenians, Chaldeans, and Maronites while not moving toward celibacy seem to be okay with the status quo in the US.

I seem to recall a few years back that the Maronites wanted to revive their married clergy.  Only one of their bishops voted for celibacy.   The Vatican, however, required absolute unanimity.

That's definitely odd.

Here's something else I found that's curious:

Celibacy is not strictly required for Maronite deacons and priests outside of North America with parishes
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church

Now, the wording is strange for a number of reasons (Why does it say "not strictly required" rather than "not required"? Also, are there no married Maronite deacons in North America?) but most importantly, does this imply that celibacy is not (strictly) required for Maronite priests in e.g. South America? (A lot of Maronites live in South America.)

 

[podkarpatska]

This does make me think of a question:

The Eastern Catholics, to my limited understanding, agreed to be in communion with Rome if Rome, for lack of a better term, "butted out" of their tradition. My question is, how much meddling would be too much meddling?

PP

Well, at the turn of the 20th century there was too much 'butting in' in the US and the faction led by St. Alexis returned to Orthodoxy becoming the founders of what is now the OCA. In Europe at the same time there were return to Orthodoxy movements which were resisted by the Hungarians and the Poles leading to the martrydom of St. Maxim Sandovich and in the 1930's more 'butting in' led to another faction leaving for Orthodoxy which became the ACROD in the USA.

 

[podkarpatska]

What is interesting to me is the notion that America is somehow unique regarding the impact of a very small number of married Eastern Catholic clergy served a tiny slice of Eastern Catholics in a land with a vast majority of Catholics are Latin-rite and used to celibacy. Why would the same restrictions not be applied say to the Greek Catholic Church in Slovakia - a country where they are a distinct minority among all Catholics and, outside of the eastern provinces of Slovakia, Greek Catholics are probably little more known among the local Latin Catholics than here. Or in the Czech republic, where Easter Catholics rarely lived prior to the end of the war or the fall of the Iron Curtain. I have a married Greek Catholic relative who is a priest  with a young family in the western Czech republic. Why is this not a 'scandal' to the local Latin-rite folks? 

Seems to me that the American Latin Bishops may be afraid of their own congregations and how they can explain this to them in our hyper-charged media culture in the USA?

 

[Jason.Wike]

Rome never learns.... I bet none of them anymore even know ACROD used to be their folks and left because of this crap.

 

[podkarpatska]

Rome never learns.... I bet none of them anymore even know ACROD used to be their folks and left because of this crap.

We are all small in number, from the descendants of the faithful led by St. Alexis or Bishop Orestes,to people leaving the Eastern churches today. I suspect that outside of the UGCC in Ukraine itself, the Eastern churches aren't really on Rome's radar. That's too bad, because the treatment of the easterners is followed intently by the Orthodox and certainly appears to be a weather vane, if you will, of what Rome really is thinking.

 

[PJ]

Rome never learns.... I bet none of them anymore even know ACROD used to be their folks and left because of this crap.

Actually, out of those of us who know about ACROD, I'd bet a fair percentage do know its origins.

 

[PJ]

the treatment of the easterners is followed intently by the Orthodox

As well you should. And, for that matter, I should probably pay more attention to how Orthodox treat WROs than I do. Maybe that'll be my lenten resolution next year.  :angel:

 

[Jason.Wike]

Rome never learns.... I bet none of them anymore even know ACROD used to be their folks and left because of this crap.

Actually, out of those of us who know about ACROD, I'd bet a fair percentage do know its origins.

How many people that know about ACROD are anything but lay people though? Whenever I've had the chance to talk to Catholic priests and religious their knowledge of just plain, basic Catholicism always leaves me wondering what they actually do with their time. I don't think knowledge of ACROD or any Eastern Catholics is common.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, in my time in the RC it seemed like only a tiny minority of its priests knew anything about the Eastern churches. Some didn't seem to even know that they exist. It's pretty sad, honestly, but on the other hand it is explainable as so little attention is ever focused on them outside of the tokenism necessary to bolster Rome's claims of "Catholicity". Sorry, Peter J...I'm sure there's a nicer way to put that, but I am just recalling watching EWTN and how they would say during coverage of the Pope's address that the Eastern churches are the "jewels of the crown" of the Church or some such...yet only play at best maybe one program on the East per month or two, and it would be at 3 AM, and it would generally be the SAME PROGRAM...the "Light from the East" or whatever its called, with the Ukrainian guy talking about icons. Oh, and once I saw a documentary on Christianity in Iraq that was pretty good...and also on at about 1 AM and only played once...ditto a 20 minute segment on the Maronites that portrayed them pretty pitifully...I was glad that they only showed that one once...

I don't know. I hear more about the Coptic Church in Fiji through our monthly diocesan news bulletins than I ever did about non-Roman churches in my half-decade in the RC. All that I learned about them was self-sought, except for my old FOC, a Dominican priest who I must thank for introducing me to the Syriac fathers (who he learned about through going through seminary with a Chaldean priest, Fr. Bazzi of St. Peter's in San Diego). This was probably not the end he was hoping for, but still...

 

[PJ]

Yeah, in my time in the RC it seemed like only a tiny minority of its priests knew anything about the Eastern churches. Some didn't seem to even know that they exist. It's pretty sad, honestly, but on the other hand it is explainable as so little attention is ever focused on them outside of the tokenism necessary to bolster Rome's claims of "Catholicity". Sorry, Peter J...I'm sure there's a nicer way to put that, but I am just recalling watching EWTN and how they would say during coverage of the Pope's address that the Eastern churches are the "jewels of the crown" of the Church or some such...yet only play at best maybe one program on the East per month or two, and it would be at 3 AM, and it would generally be the SAME PROGRAM...the "Light from the East" or whatever its called, with the Ukrainian guy talking about icons.

:laughing:

Wow.  :-[

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, that phrase in particular stuck in my mind, though I cannot remember the exact circumstances in which it was said. Anyway, quite appropriate for this thread, as it was said, and yet the actions surrounding it prove that it was not followed at all. It makes you wonder what they really believe.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  

 

[PJ]

Yeah, that phrase in particular stuck in my mind, though I cannot remember the exact circumstances in which it was said.

I have a feeling there's a Michael Scott quote that would be appropriate to put here, but I can't think of one at the moment ...

 

[Pravoslavbob]

While acknowledging DMD's valid criticism and how bad such statements look to the Orthodox I wouldn't put too much stock into this statement. Italian Cardinals keep pretending the ban is enforce and admonsihing us about it, canonists keep reminding them it was not renewed so it lost the force of law, and Greek Catholic bishops quitely keep ordaining married men, and the past two non-Italian Popes say and do nothing to stop it.

May I remind you, Deacon Lance, that until the late 1990's (or even later?) it was simply not permitted for North American-based bishops to ordain married priests?  I have mentioned before how the issue was circumvented by Ukrainian jurisdictions who loaned married deacons to dioceses in Ukraine where the local ruling bishop then quietly ordained them to the priesthood.  If you doubt my word, please refer to the Eastern Catholic scholarly journal Logos which has featured at least one or two articles on the subject.

It is a fact that the interdiction against ordaining married Eastern-rite men to the priesthood in North America has never been revoked.  Since the turn of the millennium the emissaries of the Vatican responsible for such things has agreed to turn a blind eye to such ordinations.  This article could possibly indicate a change in this policy.

 

[Deacon Lance]

May I remind you, Deacon Lance, that until the late 1990's (or even later?) it was simply not permitted for North American-based bishops to ordain married priests?  I have mentioned before how the issue was circumvented by Ukrainian jurisdictions who loaned married deacons to dioceses in Ukraine where the local ruling bishop then quietly ordained them to the priesthood.  If you doubt my word, please refer to the Eastern Catholic scholarly journal Logos which has featured at least one or two articles on the subject.

It is a fact that the interdiction against ordaining married Eastern-rite men to the priesthood in North America has never been revoked.  Since the turn of the millennium the emissaries of the Vatican responsible for such things has agreed to turn a blind eye to such ordinations.  This article could possibly indicate a change in this policy.

The first ordinations in North America since 1929 were done in the late 1980's in Canada and there was a big stink initially but the priests continued to serve and nothing happened.  The Melkites ordained a married man in 1996 in th US.  The Ukrainians and Romanians in the US followed suit and my own Church finally did so in 2006.

In fact the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit were to be renewed ever ten years to remain in force.  They were renewed in 1940 and 1950 but not in 1960.  See page 23. 
http://archive.org/stream/CumDataFuerit1929/Cum_Data_Fuerit_1929#page/n11/mode/2up

Furthermore the CCEO, promulgated in 1990 abolished all previous laws.  So I am not sure what canonical grounds the Latin bishops are standing on when they pretend the ban is still enforce.  The only thing the article indicates is the hopes of clueless Latin hierarchs that our bishops will continue to make their lives easy.  Most realize they can no longer afford that.

 

[Zenovia]

....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  

In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?   

Celibacy in the RC is not about power, control, etc.,  it is simply a matter of economics.  The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.  You know in another time and another place these homosexuals with their limited male sex drive, and which seem to abound in our society,  would have been influenced into entering the priesthood and thereby leading a more virtuous Christian life.  But they're not, so what do we get now in our topsy turvy world?  The virtues of monasticism being condemned and sinful lifestyles being lauded. 

 

[ialmisry]

May I remind you, Deacon Lance, that until the late 1990's (or even later?) it was simply not permitted for North American-based bishops to ordain married priests?  I have mentioned before how the issue was circumvented by Ukrainian jurisdictions who loaned married deacons to dioceses in Ukraine where the local ruling bishop then quietly ordained them to the priesthood.  If you doubt my word, please refer to the Eastern Catholic scholarly journal Logos which has featured at least one or two articles on the subject.

It is a fact that the interdiction against ordaining married Eastern-rite men to the priesthood in North America has never been revoked.  Since the turn of the millennium the emissaries of the Vatican responsible for such things has agreed to turn a blind eye to such ordinations.  This article could possibly indicate a change in this policy.

The first ordinations in North America since 1929 were done in the late 1980's in Canada and there was a big stink initially but the priests continued to serve and nothing happened.  The Melkites ordained a married man in 1996 in th US.  The Ukrainians and Romanians in the US followed suit and my own Church finally did so in 2006.

In fact the prescriptions of Cum data fuerit were to be renewed ever ten years to remain in force.  They were renewed in 1940 and 1950 but not in 1960.  See page 23. 
http://archive.org/stream/CumDataFuerit1929/Cum_Data_Fuerit_1929#page/n11/mode/2up

Furthermore the CCEO, promulgated in 1990 abolished all previous laws.  So I am not sure what canonical grounds the Latin bishops are standing on when they pretend the ban is still enforce.  The only thing the article indicates is the hopes of clueless Latin hierarchs that our bishops will continue to make their lives easy.  Most realize they can no longer afford that.

The same failure to promulgate the "particular law" which would let the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientarium go into effect on this matter.  The Vatican's bishops for the Middle East brought this up last year.  So far, AFAIK, silence.

 

[podkarpatska]

....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  

In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?    

Celibacy in the RC is not about power, control, etc.,  it is simply a matter of economics.  The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   You know in another time and another place these homosexuals with their limited male sex drive, and which seem to abound in our society,  would have been influenced into entering the priesthood and thereby leading a more virtuous Christian life.  But they're not, so what do we get now in our topsy turvy world?  The virtues of monasticism being condemned and sinful lifestyles being lauded.  

Really? That's a broad brush to paint the RC priesthood with and in my opinion, quite unfair. Frankly, we live in a more secular world and many of the men and women who are RC who would, in an earlier period of time, have become 'religious' ( i.e. Brothers, Sisters and clergy) won't accept the 'discipline' of celibacy and they have gone into other fields, such as social work, teaching etc....

 

[PJ]

The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   

Now this is something I would really love to hear an explanation for.

 

[Zenovia]

In your view then, 'monasticism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?    

Celibacy in the RC is not about power, control, etc.,  it is simply a matter of economics.  The Catholic Church cannot afford married priests period.   You know in another time and another place these homosexuals with their limited male sex drive, and which seem to abound in our society,  would have been influenced into entering the priesthood and thereby leading a more virtuous Christian life.  But they're not, so what do we get now in our topsy turvy world?  The virtues of monasticism being condemned and sinful lifestyles being lauded.  

Really? That's a broad brush to paint the RC priesthood with and in my opinion, quite unfair. Frankly, we live in a more secular world and many of the men and women who are RC who would, in an earlier period of time, have become 'religious' ( i.e. Brothers, Sisters and clergy) won't accept the 'discipline' of celibacy and they have gone into other fields, such as social work, teaching etc....

If you say celibacy is a discipline, then are you saying our saints merely acquired a discipline and that they weren't given the gift of celibacy from God?  Frankly I don't believe this is Orthodox  theology.  I can  understand  someone saying they lack the sufficient 'Grace' necessary to be celibate, but to say it is not a higher state of  'Grace', would be going against the very basis of Orthodox, since we are a monastic faith..and even more so than the Latin Church.     

Anyway the RCC does have monastic 'Orders' that covers social work as well as organizations in which married people can contribute to the Church if they so desire.  Necessity demands that the RC priests must be monastic and therefore celibate.  As I said, they cannot afford married priests.  If they did, then they would probably have to dissolve their charitable institutions, and that is  something I don't think the RCC would want to do. 

In the Orthodox Church,  the late Grand Duchess Sergius Alexandrovitch Romonov, who is now Saint Elizabeth, was given permission to start the Saints Martha and Mary Convent in Moscow after the death of her husband.  The Convent was modelled after the Western fashion, and was dedicated to helping the poor in Moscow.  She and her sister, the late Tsarina Alexandra, were both raised to be nurses by their grandmother Queen Victoria, and the worse cases were brought to Saint Elizabeth before her martyrdom  by the Bolsheviks.

I just thought I'd throw that in.... 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....

It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it.  It is a question of power and control.  Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops.  Think of it:  if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around.  Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy.  Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.  

Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are.  The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.

And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline.  They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all.  And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.  

In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but  merely a discipline?  Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?

You do realize that the subject of discussion here is clerical celibacy, not mere celibacy per se? No one said anything about monasticism.

 

[Curious Joe]

This is causing quite the stir within the EC community, particularly in the UGCC in the USA and Canada.

It would be nice if the hierarchs of Eastern Europe came out and spoke against this, particularly His Beatitude Sviatoslav.

I think it is critical that the Churches of Eastern Europe, those who came into communion via Brest or Uzhhorod, stick together irrespective of whether they are formally bound together (as in the case of the the UGCC) or not (as is the case with the Ruthenian Churches). When this happens, in solidarity with the other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, finality may finally be forced on this and other unfortunate subjects in the history of the Eastern Catholic experience.

 

[ialmisry]

This is causing quite the stir within the EC community, particularly in the UGCC in the USA and Canada.

It would be nice if the hierarchs of Eastern Europe came out and spoke against this, particularly His Beatitude Sviatoslav.

That certainly would be a test of his insistance on his ecclesiastical community being a world wide church, which I expect to cross the Vatican sometime soon. 

 

[podkarpatska]

To get back to the focus of the OP.....Has there been any additional news about the original statement from Rome which precipitated this derailment?

 

[elijahmaria]

Signaling a possible shift in policy, Catholic News Service today reported the comments of the head of the papal office overseeing US Eastern Catholic Bishops that new vocations to the priesthood in US Eastern Catholic Churches should be “embracing celibacy” because “mandatory celibacy is the general rule for priests” in the US. For the past several years, Eastern Catholic Bishops in the US have had the option of requesting dispensations from the celibacy rule from Rome to allow for the ordination of married men to the priesthood. While it is not yet known if this signifies a change in policy on the issue, this is the first time in decades for a Vatican official to publicly encourage celibacy for Eastern Catholic clergy. It also contrasts with recent allowances of some ordinations of married men to the priesthood in the Latin Rite among clergy converts from Protestant churches.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rome-to-us-eastern-catholics-new-priests-should-embrace-celibacy/

All this represents is a the personal opinion of a Cardinal in Rome.  Who knows why he said it.  I can think of half a dozen reasons, including the possibility that some Roman rite bishops in the US asked him to...

So what...nothing else has changed.

BTW  I think Zenovia is a bright bold soul....

 

[ialmisry]

Signaling a possible shift in policy, Catholic News Service today reported the comments of the head of the papal office overseeing US Eastern Catholic Bishops that new vocations to the priesthood in US Eastern Catholic Churches should be “embracing celibacy” because “mandatory celibacy is the general rule for priests” in the US. For the past several years, Eastern Catholic Bishops in the US have had the option of requesting dispensations from the celibacy rule from Rome to allow for the ordination of married men to the priesthood. While it is not yet known if this signifies a change in policy on the issue, this is the first time in decades for a Vatican official to publicly encourage celibacy for Eastern Catholic clergy. It also contrasts with recent allowances of some ordinations of married men to the priesthood in the Latin Rite among clergy converts from Protestant churches.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rome-to-us-eastern-catholics-new-priests-should-embrace-celibacy/

All this represents is a the personal opinion of a Cardinal in Rome.  Who knows why he said it.  I can think of half a dozen reasons, including the possibility that some Roman rite bishops in the US asked him to...

So what...nothing else has changed.

you're right.  That particular law the Easterners who have submitted to the Vatican has not been promulgated.

But the silence on it on the Latin, i.e. Vatican,'s side has been broken.

BTW  I think Zenovia is a bright bold soul....

The blessings of....

 

[Deacon Lance]

But what is to stop the Congregation from ordering the return of priests ordained by eparchs in Europe to their original jurisdiction?

Nothing I suppose.  But what is going to make the bishops obey?  And there is always citizenship.  Some become American citizens and give up their old citizenship.  A cardinal tried this one already in Poland except th married priest were born in and citizens of Poland  not Ukraine.  The curia issues orders hoping they will comply knowing they really can't force them to do anything.

 

[ialmisry]

But what is to stop the Congregation from ordering the return of priests ordained by eparchs in Europe to their original jurisdiction?

Nothing I suppose.  But what is going to make the bishops obey?  

Abp. Hefele learned the lesson of renewal of "faculties" the hard way.

 

[PJ]

Do anything think we should have a separate thread for one or the other of these 2 conversations?

 

[podkarpatska]

Do anything think we should have a separate thread for one or the other of these 2 conversations?

I do!

 

[PJ]

(deleted -- decided to take my own advice and start a different thread, now that the original discussing is totally buried)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44881.new.html

 

[PJ]

(deleted -- decided to take my own advice and start a different thread, now that the original discussion is totally buried)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44881.new.html

 

[PeterTheAleut]

The tangent started in response to Zenovia's assertion quoted below has been moved to Religious Topics.

Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=44882.0

 

[PJ]

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Has anyone else here caught the oxymoron in the phrase "embrace celibacy"? :laugh:

 

[LBK]

Has anyone else here caught the oxymoron in the phrase "embrace celibacy"? :laugh:

Cute.  :laugh: :laugh:

 

[ialmisry]

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

No.  The sheep who wandered astray might flock back like those who followed the Shepherd St. Alexis, embrace Orthodoxy and re-inter the Catholic Church.  How the Vatican takes that doesn't matter.

 

[primuspilus]

I gotta say, that if I were an EC this would really make me wonder about the promises of Rome. Of course, this isn't a demand, but it can very easily become one.

PP

 

[podkarpatska]

I gotta say, that if I were an EC this would really make me wonder about the promises of Rome. Of course, this isn't a demand, but it can very easily become one.

PP

While we Orthodox frequently complain about the Eastern Catholic churches in our midst (such as Metropolitan Hilarion's recent comments discussed earlier this year), the reality is that Orthodox leaders who are at least open-minded regarding dialogue with the Church of Rome (as well as those of us who profess more suspicion) tend to view the Eastern Churches as a 'canary' in the Roman mine shaft. These recent developments were received either with sadness or "I told you so" depending on your stand as they indicate a lack of 'oxygen' in Rome's view of the east.  This should make EC's fret about their future. As we say, the door is always open here!

 

[PJ]

I gotta say, that if I were an EC this would really make me wonder about the promises of Rome. Of course, this isn't a demand, but it can very easily become one.

PP

While we Orthodox frequently complain about the Eastern Catholic churches in our midst (such as Metropolitan Hilarion's recent comments discussed earlier this year), the reality is that Orthodox leaders who are at least open-minded regarding dialogue with the Church of Rome (as well as those of us who profess more suspicion) tend to view the Eastern Churches as a 'canary' in the Roman mine shaft. These recent developments were received either with sadness or "I told you so" depending on your stand as they indicate a lack of 'oxygen' in Rome's view of the east.  This should make EC's fret about their future. As we say, the door is always open here!

I've been hearing Orthodox say this sort of thing for many years now; but just in the last couple years I've started to wonder if this isn't the first part of a bait-and-switch.