Eastern Catholic bishops make ad limina visit

  • Thread starter Thread starter DadDave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
I think that answer lies in the notion of the preservation of tradition. It cannot be denied that the Church has always worked under the concept of territoriality. The idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is a relatively new concept within the Catholic Church.

In the first millenium, when Christians of a different Tradition moved to a new territorial jurisdiction, that Christian or group of Christians would either adopt the local traditions, or - if enough Christians from the migrant tradition exist - the local hierarch (bishop or head bishop) could provide for the maintenance of that “foreign” tradition with their own priests, but never a new bishop. There was always the understanding that the priests, even of that “foreign” rite, were under the omophor of the local bishop or head bishop.

The “New World” presented both opportunities and problems for the Churches. That we have bishops in the traditional Latin territories is due to the solicitude of past Popes. But that we have bishops is not the norm according to Tradition. Traditionally speaking, non-Latins in the U.S. should be under the omophor of Latin bishops, and the Latin bishops would provide for our needs with priests who serve in our particular Rite. But now that most non-Latins have their own bishops in the traditional Latin territories, they have a right to insist on the preservation of their own traditions (I use third-person “they” here, my Eastern/Oriental brethren, only because my Coptic Catholic Church in the U.S does not have its own hierarchy).

Traditionally speaking, the U.S. is regarded as the territorial jurisdiction of the Latin Church, and the rules of their Episcopal Conference apply, no matter how hard it is for non-Latins to accept. It is commonly believed that Episcopal Conferences don’t have jurisdictional capacity, unlike the formal Synod of non-Latin Churches. But that is not true. Episcopal Conferences may not have AS MUCH jurisdictional powers as formal Synods, but they certainly do have some. And there’s the problem. We recognize that Episcopal Conferences do not have AS MUCH jurisdictional powers as Synods, so how much can the rules of an Episcopal Conference apply to the members of sui juris Churches with their own Synods?

As noted, those in the “New World” live in a situation that is still rather new relative to the existence of the Church (personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions). There are still a lot of kinks that need to be worked out (what an understatement!). But whatever the solution is, it cannot have anything to do with the breaking of the unity of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. After my earlier post, I considered the idea of traditional territory with respect to the United States and the Latin Church but I didn’t know the ins and outs.

Peace,
 
mardukm said:
I would be interested to know, if someone has the answer:
Currently, I think the Ethiopian Catholic Church is the only sui juris Church wherein the Latins are under the care of the non-Latin hierarchy. I wonder if Latin priests serving there may enter the priesthood as married candidates.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Actually I think they have Latin rite bishops within the synod. I don’t know the answer to your question but it was a very good one.

Of course, if I was to guess, I think we already know the answer …
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Speaking of my own Ruthenian Church, with our new Metropolitan making his first ad limina visit in this capacity after his recent enthronement, it is simply heartbreaking that the celebacy issue is so emphasized, There are far greater challenges before us to preserve this Church, which ironically was first mortally wounded in the US in the early 20th century by this very subject matter. A greater sensitivty would thus be warranted, especially with regards to comments made publicly, which are bound to end up posted in forums like this without delay.
Click to expand...
Well put.

It was a slap in the face, made even worse by being a lecture from a Latin rite prelate. The new Archbishop should have given him a lecture!
 
The reality though is that the celibacy issue in most Western countries is frequently cited along with support for the ordination of women, and the acceptance of homosexual unions, divorce and contraception. I’m sure that grouping togather offends alot of people, but that’s just the way it is, and I take it the Vatican is well aware of this.
 
Seamus_L said:
The reality though is that the celibacy issue in most Western countries is frequently cited along with support for the ordination of women, and the acceptance of homosexual unions, divorce and contraception. I’m sure that grouping togather offends alot of people, but that’s just the way it is, and I take it the Vatican is well aware of this.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is the problem, that they treat celibacy that its as big a deal as gay marriage and women priests. The fact is that there has always been married clergy in the Church, while the other two never existed.
 
Is the Vatican afraid of RC jumping ship so to speak to EC Churches once they find out they have married priests? But I wouldn’t think so since there are many Catholic churches that have had married (convert) priests at one time or another. Since priests rotate around the diocese it is likely that many congregations have been exposed to married priests. The US is a highly educated country so I don’t think that “confusion” would be the issue either.
Maybe they’re worried about Protestants (like Anglicans) converting to EC Churches and then the immense growth they might then encounter? Perhaps they’re even worried about the whole EC discussion might also make RC’s aware of EO – in which their would be another example of ancient Apostolic church with married clergy?
 
DadDave said:
Is the Vatican afraid of RC jumping ship so to speak to EC Churches once they find out they have married priests? But I wouldn’t think so since there are many Catholic churches that have had married (convert) priests at one time or another. Since priests rotate around the diocese it is likely that many congregations have been exposed to married priests. The US is a highly educated country so I don’t think that “confusion” would be the issue either.
Maybe they’re worried about Protestants (like Anglicans) converting to EC Churches and then the immense growth they might then encounter? Perhaps they’re even worried about the whole EC discussion might also make RC’s aware of EO – in which their would be another example of ancient Apostolic church with married clergy?
Click to expand...
I think they are afraid their own priests would want to get married (too late though, it would have to happen before ordination) or that seminarians will just jump the sui juris ship and swim across to an Eastern ship 😉
 
ConstantineTG said:
Maybe that is the problem, that they treat celibacy that its as big a deal as gay marriage and women priests. The fact is that there has always been married clergy in the Church, while the other two never existed.
Click to expand...
Quite so.

It seems to me the problem is that within the Latin church the discipline of mandatory celibacy for clergy is being questioned by some well-meaning people. There are two factions (both well-meaning, of course) within the Latin church contending over the issue, however the ‘optional’ celibacy faction would not seem to be the majority right now …

It is, of course, possible that if the general public was aware of (and comfortable with) the longstanding Eastern Catholic tradition of optional celibacy for clergy, the scales could tip in favor of a change in that practice. Perhaps many Latin Catholic bishops and clergy are concerned about that.

This is not a matter of theology, it is a discipline. Mandatory celibacy has never been a universal discipline throughout the entire church, and even in the west it was not always mandatory, so it is an open question and probably should be discussed within the community in a healthy, open and honest manner.

This is a matter for the Latin Catholic church to deal with itself. The Latin Catholics will not welcome an eastern Christian’s unsolicited opinion on the subject, they should not expect any Eastern Christians to carry their bags for them. It is not the responsibility of the eastern churches to hide their own traditions nor make extra sacrifices to buttress the position of one faction within the Latin church.

Often, we read that Latin bishops do not want married eastern priests in their areas or regions because it would ‘cause scandal’ among the faithful. It is quite an insult to be told one’s ancient and respectable tradition is scandalous in the eyes of others.

The fact is, married priests are a reality all across the church and the modern Latin Catholic community is mature enough to handle the truth. They are not all children and there is no reason to hide anything from them. It is a major failing on their part if they have not educated their own people about eastern Christianity. That is the real scandal.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Maybe that is the problem, that they treat celibacy that its as big a deal as gay marriage and women priests. The fact is that there has always been married clergy in the Church, while the other two never existed.
Click to expand...
Quite so.

It seems to me the problem is that within the Latin church the discipline of mandatory celibacy for clergy is being questioned by some well-meaning people. There are two factions (both well-meaning, of course) within the Latin church contending over the issue, however the ‘optional’ celibacy faction would not seem to be the majority right now …

It is, of course, possible that if the general public was aware of (and comfortable with) the longstanding Eastern Catholic tradition of optional celibacy for clergy, the scales could tip in favor of a change in that practice. Perhaps many Latin Catholic bishops and clergy are concerned about that.

This is not a matter of theology, it is a discipline. Mandatory celibacy has never been a universal discipline throughout the entire church, and even in the west it was not always mandatory, so it is an open question and probably should be discussed within the community in a healthy, open and honest manner.

This is a matter for the Latin Catholic church to deal with itself. The Latin Catholics will not welcome an eastern Christian’s unsolicited opinion on the subject, they should not expect any Eastern Christians to carry their bags for them. It is not the responsibility of the eastern churches to hide their own traditions nor make extra sacrifices to buttress the position of one faction within the Latin church.

Often, we read that Latin bishops do not want married eastern priests in their areas or regions because it would ‘cause scandal’ among the faithful. It is quite an insult to be told one’s ancient and respectable tradition is scandalous in the eyes of others.

The fact is, married priests are a reality all across the church and the modern Latin Catholic community is mature enough to handle the truth. They are not all children and there is no reason to hide anything from them. It is a major failing on their part if they have not educated their own people about eastern Christianity. That is the real scandal.
 
Hesychios said:
Often, we read that Latin bishops do not want married eastern priests in their areas or regions because it would ‘cause scandal’ among the faithful. It is quite an insult to be told one’s ancient and respectable tradition is scandalous in the eyes of others.
Click to expand...
And that, in my opinion, is one of the silliest objections to raise against married clergy in EC churches. In my Latin-rite parish, very few members even know there’s such a thing as Eastern Catholicism, so I can’t understand why this would cause widespread scandal. Further, it’s not even really scandalous in the sense that I understand the word - to what sins would this “scandal” lead Latin-rite Catholics? I’ve never understood that objection and I never will.
Hesychios said:
The fact is, married priests are a reality all across the church and the modern Latin Catholic community is mature enough to handle the truth. They are not all children and there is no reason to hide anything from them. It is a major failing on their part if they have not educated their own people about eastern Christianity. That is the real scandal.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but there are (as I’m sure others have mentioned many times) married priests in the Latin rite who’ve been received into the Church and its priesthood via the pastoral provision - not to mention the Anglicans who’ve recently joined the Church.

I just don’t get it. I’m MORE scandalized by the Vatican’ suppression of authentic Eastern Catholic spirituality than I could ever be by the prospect of a married EC priest!
 
IMO, the Cardinal makes a very good point.

It is an unfortunate reality that the discipline of celibacy is under attack not just by some well meaning people, but also by those who mean ill. And those whose wish ill have objectives far beyond the issue of celibacy. The broader issues revolve around the strange idea, so ingrained in our time, that boundless recreational sex is a necessary part of human existence; the only perversion is abstinence or celibacy, and that is so unnatural that it inevitably leads to deviant behavior. And of course it is deviant not inherently but only because it is a sin of religious. That is the environment.

The question is: as churches, and as individuals - how should we respond to this environment? We will ultimately be held accountable for how we helped to address this fundamental moral problem of our age. I think that any retreat from the discipline of celibacy in regions where this is the traditional is at best untimely. Exceptional cases are not consequential, but major changes in policy are.

The issue is not about having a better teaching, and thus getting a better response among Catholics. The issue is the example that needs to be sent to the world - that is the responsibility of a Catholic church - a world that is not interested in long explanations, but self-serving sound bites.

So what are we called to do at this moment? If I felt for a minute that the very survival of our churches depended on a married priesthood, the picture would be different. But this simply isn’t the case. Moreover, it should also be clear that a married priesthood is not an essential, constant tradition - like, say, our liturgies. So, while we could think first of ourselves, hold fast to old grudges, nurse old wounds, and conclude: that is a Latin problem (what, am I my brothers keeper?), to me, this attitude in unconscionable. We must act not merely to exercise our freedoms, and parochial interest, but we must act deliberately and dispassionately with intention to address the critical issues of our times.
I think that this is what the Cardinal is proposing - and if the reaction here is any indication, it was a good thing that he did.

I am not sure why some go out of their way to take offense, to counsel others to take offense, and even to tell this or that hierarch what they should or should not do. But I think that such perspectives really are missing the big picture.

This subject reminds me of the question that I asked EOs about artificial birth control: however thoughtfully and magnanimously that family planning using ABC is undertaken, is there not a culpability for contributing to he market and culture of recreational sex? Are the ripples and reverberations generated by our actions not considered to be a serious part of our actions? That is the big picture.
 
IMO, the Cardinal makes a very good point.

It is an unfortunate reality that the discipline of celibacy is under attack not just by some well meaning people, but also by those who mean ill. And those whose wish ill have objectives far beyond the issue of celibacy. The broader issues revolve around the strange idea, so ingrained in our time, that boundless recreational sex is a necessary part of human existence; the only perversion is abstinence or celibacy, and that is so unnatural that it inevitably leads to deviant behavior. And of course it is deviant not inherently but only because it is a sin of religious. That is the environment.

The question is: as churches, and as individuals - how should we respond to this environment? We will ultimately be held accountable for how we helped to address this fundamental moral problem of our age. I think that any retreat from the discipline of celibacy in regions where this is the traditional is at best untimely. Exceptional cases are not consequential, but major changes in policy are.

The issue is not about having a better teaching, and thus getting a better response among Catholics. The issue is the example that needs to be sent to the world - that is the responsibility of a Catholic church - a world that is not interested in long explanations, but self-serving sound bites.

So what are we called to do at this moment? If I felt for a minute that the very survival of our churches depended on a married priesthood, the picture would be different. But this simply isn’t the case. Moreover, it should also be clear that a married priesthood is not an essential, constant tradition - like, say, our liturgies. So, while we could think first of ourselves, hold fast to old grudges, nurse old wounds, and conclude: that is a Latin problem (what, am I my brothers keeper?), to me, this attitude in unconscionable. We must act not merely to exercise our freedoms, and parochial interest, but we must act deliberately and dispassionately with intention to address the critical issues of our times.
I think that this is what the Cardinal is proposing - and if the reaction here is any indication, it was a good thing that he did.

I am not sure why some go out of their way to take offense, to counsel others to take offense, and even to tell this or that hierarch what they should or should not do. But I think that such perspectives really are missing the big picture.

This subject reminds me of the question that I asked EOs about artificial birth control: however thoughtfully and magnanimously that family planning using ABC is undertaken, is there not a culpability for contributing to he market and culture of recreational sex? Are the ripples and reverberations generated by our actions not considered to be a serious part of our actions? That is the big picture.
 
A sympathetic granting of dispensations on a case by case basis would solve the problem.
 
dvdjs said:
It is an unfortunate reality that the discipline of celibacy is under attack not just by some well meaning people, but also by those who mean ill. And those whose wish ill have objectives far beyond the issue of celibacy. The broader issues revolve around the strange idea, so ingrained in our time, that boundless recreational sex is a necessary part of human existence; the only perversion is abstinence or celibacy, and that is so unnatural that it inevitably leads to deviant behavior. And of course it is deviant not inherently but only because it is a sin of religious. That is the environment.
Click to expand...
Thus, the response should be the further suppression of traditions of a portion of the faithful that represents but a sliver of Catholicism (but, of course, the entirety of Orthodoxy).

Faithful who see the ongoing erosion of their own religious heritage should further martyr themselves in the interests of the broader Church, for a perceived social good (that is, a celibate preiesthood will be a successful defense and counter to the trends which date back decades), lest they be branded as unenlightened, wounded souls, unwilling to stand in solidarity with the Catholic Church (despite the witness of many recent marytyrs and those who did remain faithful to the Byzantine Catholic Church and did not flee to Orthodoxy, as many did).

Who is it that can’t see beyond the issue here? It is “those who mean ill” who equate their views of reality or norms of acceptable behavior. It is not Eastern Catholics who wish to enjoy the fullness of their traditions. It is certain that those who mean harm and aim to propogate and legitimize deviant behavior will be unimpressed by a celibate priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top