What Would The Catholic Church Have To Concede?

Status
Not open for further replies.

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
FWIW we have had two married men be ordained in the Eparchy of Phoenix by Bishop Gerald, just within the past few months. And they weren't previously married converts.
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
theistgal said:
FWIW we have had two married men be ordained in the Eparchy of Phoenix by Bishop Gerald, just within the past few months. And they weren't previously married converts.
I've been told that it is not these externals that we are all exampling but the Theological differences that mainly keep us apart.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Wandile said:
Michał Kalina said:
Wandile said:
Michał Kalina said:
Married Greek Catholic men cannot get ordained in Poland.
Explain the situation first. I haven't heard of this...
What to explain? It's selfexplantory.
"Yet even after the proclamation of Orientale Lumen, the situation regarding married clergy came to another critical head in early 1998 when on the request of the Polish Latin Church hierarchy, the Vatican Secretary of State, Angelo Cardinal Sodano ordered all married Ukrainian Catholic priests out of their parishes in Poland back to Ukraine, due once more to the Latin Church claiming their presence as being scandalous. What had occurred was that with the collapse of Communism in the East, the Ukrainian seminaries had now been re-opened, their thresholds being crossed by hundreds of young married men. Then in 1998 — these ordained young men were now flooding from their seminaries to once abandoned parishes, along with their wives and children. This was all too much for a fiercely Latin Church nation, such as Poland. The tone of Cardinal Sodano's order and its clause that only celibate priests be allowed within Poland's national boundaries was gravely in breach of the spirit of unity in diversity, and the Papal exhortation of 1995.

The use of the Latin term 'uxorati' in Cardinal Sodano's letter referring to married clergy was also another key area of contention. This action created an enormous backlash from the Eastern Catholic Churches worldwide to which the decision was later revoked and an apology was forthcoming.
http://www.catholica.com.au/andrewstake/041c_print.php "

So from the looks of it, Greek Catholics can become priests in Poland. It was an unfortunate error on the part of Cardinal Sodano who himself is notorious for other scandalous things. I'm not a fan of him.
It also has to do with the disgraceful conduct of Poles and the Catholic Church in expelling most of the Greek Catholics following the war - prior to the communist takeover.

And Card. Sodano was of the same ignorant mindset as was Cardinal Sandri with his remarks of last spring to the EC bishops in Rome for the ad litima visit.

The fact remains that Rome is oblivious to the ecclesiology behind the married priesthood of the Christian East. Rome's attitude on this subject is to the Orthodox,serves as a warning to her true behavior,  like the canary in the mine, and disheartened many in both the eastern Catholic and Orthodox communities.

"The recommendations of a 21st century Cardinal that the injustice leveled against Eastern Catholics in the 19th and 20th centuries forbidding married priests to serve (and thus be ordained) in North America be maintained brought to the forefront an awareness of how this issue had been divisive in the past. Even more, it was indicative of how it still impacted Eastern Catholic candidates for Holy Orders and their churches in North America in the present, and how it would serve as a major obstacle in healing of the chasm between Christian East and West before the 1,000th anniversary (in 42 years) of the Great Schism of 1054." http://acrod.org/news/releases/rome-conference

A Latin church Cardinal in Rome should have NO say regarding the exercise of the historical prerogatives of the so called "sui juris" self ruling Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.  That is why Rome herself acknowledged at Balamond that the Unia was not a proper model for a future reunited Church.

 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
ialmisry said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
it says "This action created an enormous backlash from the Eastern Catholic Churches worldwide to which the decision was later revoked and an apology was forthcoming."

The decision to ban married Greek Clergy was revoked.
But what was revoked?  The clergy affected by Card. Sodano's decree were already ordained priests.  If the decision to remove them from their parishes was revoked, all that means is that they were allowed to come back.  It doesn't necessarily address permitting the ordination of married men.  And, if Michal's on the ground version of things is to be believed, they are not allowed to ordain married men, but have to send them elsewhere to get ordained and then come back.  Such things have happened in America as well.  It's sad, because it makes both ordination and marriage look like something dirty that has to be hidden from polite company.   
Ditto the letter of the head of their Episcopal Conference of Italy telling their Romanian Major Archbishop not to send married priests to Italy (of course, mandating celibacy in Romania is A-OK).

This was brought up at a Synod of their Middle Eastern bishops at the Vatican.  AFAIK, only silence has ensued.
The North American and Australian Ukrainian Greek Catholic faculty from the Orientale in Rome sponsored a forum on this latest insult from the head of the Oriental Congregation last year. They invited an Orthodox priest, several international EC scholars and an outspoken Jesuit of  Greek heritage from Florence to present. They were not permitted to meet at the Orientale, they met at the hostel run by the RCC of Australia. Apparently students from Ukraine and Poland were "urged" not to attend. This was also the topic at the Lumen Gentile conference in DC this spring where it was clear to the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox attendees that the Romans simply do not understand, or more likely arrogantly dismiss, the Eastern point of view. I linked the Rome conference previously in reply to Wandile.

It seems to many that the fealty pledged and loyalty offered to the Holy See by Eastern Catholics is not reciprocated by the Vatican bureaucracy, notwithstanding the public positions of the Popes and the published papers of many leading Roman academics.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
podkarpatska said:
ialmisry said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
it says "This action created an enormous backlash from the Eastern Catholic Churches worldwide to which the decision was later revoked and an apology was forthcoming."

The decision to ban married Greek Clergy was revoked.
But what was revoked?  The clergy affected by Card. Sodano's decree were already ordained priests.  If the decision to remove them from their parishes was revoked, all that means is that they were allowed to come back.  It doesn't necessarily address permitting the ordination of married men.  And, if Michal's on the ground version of things is to be believed, they are not allowed to ordain married men, but have to send them elsewhere to get ordained and then come back.  Such things have happened in America as well.  It's sad, because it makes both ordination and marriage look like something dirty that has to be hidden from polite company.   
Ditto the letter of the head of their Episcopal Conference of Italy telling their Romanian Major Archbishop not to send married priests to Italy (of course, mandating celibacy in Romania is A-OK).

This was brought up at a Synod of their Middle Eastern bishops at the Vatican.  AFAIK, only silence has ensued.
The North American and Australian Ukrainian Greek Catholic faculty from the Orientale in Rome sponsored a forum on this latest insult from the head of the Oriental Congregation last year. They invited an Orthodox priest, several international EC scholars and an outspoken Jesuit of  Greek heritage from Florence to present. They were not permitted to meet at the Orientale, they met at the hostel run by the RCC of Australia. Apparently students from Ukraine and Poland were "urged" not to attend. This was also the topic at the Lumen Gentile conference in DC this spring where it was clear to the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox attendees that the Romans simply do not understand, or more likely arrogantly dismiss, the Eastern point of view. I linked the Rome conference previously in reply to Wandile.

It seems to many that the fealty pledged and loyalty offered to the Holy See by Eastern Catholics is not reciprocated by the Vatican bureaucracy, notwithstanding the public positions of the Popes and the published papers of many leading Roman academics.
that's how plausible deniability "works."
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
FWIW we have had two married men be ordained in the Eparchy of Phoenix by Bishop Gerald, just within the past few months. And they weren't previously married converts.
I've been told that it is not these externals that we are all exampling but the Theological differences that mainly keep us apart.
The point is though that these "external" differences are exemplary of the attitudes and behavior of many in the west, just as many on this thread can only see a united church wherein the west would be remade in a "Byzantine" fashion. Without an appreciation of and respect for each other's long established and venerable -and non dogmatic - traditions, there is NO hope for unity or understandings (no one uses the term concession) on any substantive issues.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
ialmisry said:
podkarpatska said:
ialmisry said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
it says "This action created an enormous backlash from the Eastern Catholic Churches worldwide to which the decision was later revoked and an apology was forthcoming."

The decision to ban married Greek Clergy was revoked.
But what was revoked?  The clergy affected by Card. Sodano's decree were already ordained priests.  If the decision to remove them from their parishes was revoked, all that means is that they were allowed to come back.  It doesn't necessarily address permitting the ordination of married men.  And, if Michal's on the ground version of things is to be believed, they are not allowed to ordain married men, but have to send them elsewhere to get ordained and then come back.  Such things have happened in America as well.  It's sad, because it makes both ordination and marriage look like something dirty that has to be hidden from polite company.   
Ditto the letter of the head of their Episcopal Conference of Italy telling their Romanian Major Archbishop not to send married priests to Italy (of course, mandating celibacy in Romania is A-OK).

This was brought up at a Synod of their Middle Eastern bishops at the Vatican.  AFAIK, only silence has ensued.
The North American and Australian Ukrainian Greek Catholic faculty from the Orientale in Rome sponsored a forum on this latest insult from the head of the Oriental Congregation last year. They invited an Orthodox priest, several international EC scholars and an outspoken Jesuit of  Greek heritage from Florence to present. They were not permitted to meet at the Orientale, they met at the hostel run by the RCC of Australia. Apparently students from Ukraine and Poland were "urged" not to attend. This was also the topic at the Lumen Gentile conference in DC this spring where it was clear to the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox attendees that the Romans simply do not understand, or more likely arrogantly dismiss, the Eastern point of view. I linked the Rome conference previously in reply to Wandile.

It seems to many that the fealty pledged and loyalty offered to the Holy See by Eastern Catholics is not reciprocated by the Vatican bureaucracy, notwithstanding the public positions of the Popes and the published papers of many leading Roman academics.
that's how plausible deniability "works."
I do think it's fair to observe that both west and east utilize that practice regarding inter-church matters.
Lots of talk, lots of symbolism, no substance.

However, as others have observed, there remain valid reasons to keep talking. Just keep expectations off the table.
 

ErmyCath

Elder
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri
podkarpatska said:
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
FWIW we have had two married men be ordained in the Eparchy of Phoenix by Bishop Gerald, just within the past few months. And they weren't previously married converts.
I've been told that it is not these externals that we are all exampling but the Theological differences that mainly keep us apart.
The point is though that these "external" differences are exemplary of the attitudes and behavior of many in the west, just as many on this thread can only see a united church wherein the west would be remade in a "Byzantine" fashion. Without an appreciation of and respect for each other's long established and venerable -and non dogmatic - traditions, there is NO hope for unity or understandings (no one uses the term concession) on any substantive issues.
The "West" has developed traditions and customs in a way consistent with the doctrines it would have to give up in any future united Church, though. So, it's tough to say what is appropriate of western customs and externals and what is too tainted by doctrinal error.  There's no clear delineation. So, from a practical perspective, it is a near impossibility to imagine what the western church would look like if orthodoxy had prevailed over the past millenium. With that in mind, the only frame of reference is eastern unless one were to be attempt to inorganically impose what one thought western orthodoxy would look like. That would always be speculative and involve a large degree of archaeologism, though. And it would mirror to a degree the flaws of thinking of the Roman Church for the past 50 years.
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
augustin717 said:
Kniaziev, Lossky maybe even Evdokimov, also Bulgakov had no problem with the Lourdes apparitions .
Do you have a source for this claim?
yeah, but the books are in Romania now.
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IIRC Paul Evdokimov said somewhere in his introduction to Orthodoxy or in The Art of the Icon that, when asked which image of the Theotokos the Lady of Lourdes looked like, Bernardette picked a Byzantine icon. 
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kniazieff had a book translated into Romanian  "Maica Domnului in Biserica Ortodoxa"-"La mere de Dieu dans l'Eglise Orthodoxe" where he discusses Lourdes as well.
So anyways to me dzeremy's intransigence was funny.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Romaios said:
IIRC Paul Evdokimov said somewhere in his introduction to Orthodoxy or in The Art of the Icon that, when asked which image of the Theotokos the Lady of Lourdes looked like, Bernardette picked a Byzantine icon.  
I have never heard that. Do you have a picture or name of that icon?

This commonly used picture does not resemble any Orthodox icon of the Theotokos that I have ever seen:

http://www.picturesongold.com/products/saint-bernadette-medal-p66354.html
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
username! said:
The post vatican 2 church is not the same as the pre
Vatican 2 church. It was completely revamped. Like a new operating system with the same platform. How do we adress that?
Perhaps start a new thread?
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
So just out of curiosity, what would the Orthodox Church have to concede? Or is it all on the Romans?
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
theistgal said:
So just out of curiosity, what would the Orthodox Church have to concede? Or is it all on the Romans?
Probably both sides will have to kick out a few unorthodox bishops (forcibly retire them to monasteries).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
theistgal said:
So just out of curiosity, what would the Orthodox Church have to concede? Or is it all on the Romans?
The Romaioi and Romanians don't have to change a thing.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
ErmyCath said:
The "West" has developed traditions and customs in a way consistent with the doctrines it would have to give up in any future united Church, though. So, it's tough to say what is appropriate of western customs and externals and what is too tainted by doctrinal error.  There's no clear delineation. So, from a practical perspective, it is a near impossibility to imagine what the western church would look like if orthodoxy had prevailed over the past millenium. With that in mind, the only frame of reference is eastern unless one were to be attempt to inorganically impose what one thought western orthodoxy would look like. That would always be speculative and involve a large degree of archaeologism, though. And it would mirror to a degree the flaws of thinking of the Roman Church for the past 50 years.
I'd like to see a list of these "traditions and customs" which developed out of the "doctrines" which the RC's would be required to give up before I could agree with this. 
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
JoeS2 said:
rakovsky said:
Rome would have to concede its claim to papal supremacy, what Isa calls ultramontism. The idea that the Pope is to the Patriarchs like an emperor to all others cannot stay, because this belief prevents the EOs from having their own beliefs and practices when the Pope disagrees with them. The Pope can simply order them to do whatever he will want, and if they are one Church it becomes an unworkable contradiction. An idea that "oh, he would never do that against their will" is not practical or secure, because sometimes the Pope believes X and EOs think Y. But if the Pope is the ultimate hierarch it becomes a situation where you must accept his beliefs because he is your hierarch.
Suffice it to say, we don't see any chance of unity at least in this lifetime.  But, it is good that we do have dialogues from time to time for discussing the deplorable state of morals in the world.  I for one, would not tolerate any compromising of our Faith just for the sake of obtaining a unity.  Its just not worth it. 
I agree. I think that some differences could be allowed, but the main one that could not would be papal supremacy. A difference that could be allowed I believe is the use of unleavened bread in RC churches. Our Western Rite ones use unleavened bread, but I think that the leavening issue should not be enough for a division of churches. I could even see an Orthodox rendering of the filioque to be acceptable, because once it has proceeded from the father to the son, the Spirit now proceeds from the Son too. There was an ecumenical (joint) meeting of RCs and EOs that explained that a certain view of it would be OK.

But Papal supremacy is the thing that could not be allowed to stay because if it did, it would mean Orthodox would have to agree with whatever the Pope said, because he would be their highest leader then. Catholics even have a chart I saw about how the Pope is at the top and Patriarchs are below him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top