Fr. Thomas Loya's Letter to Met. William

[dvdjs]

Hesychios:

No disrespect intended to his Eminence, but he owes his appointment to Rome. It is because of a decision in Rome and from Rome that he is, in fact, the Metropolitan. He can also be removed through a similar process.

He is in a very uncomfortable position because if he says what really needs to be said many in Rome will take him to be ungrateful for the opportunity he was given, to serve the Ruthenian Catholic church in America at the behest of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope/Patriarch of Rome and his own patriarch. [It might be noted that this line of bishops does not derive from Orthodox bishops, Bishop Skurla’s own Episcopal lineage is traceable through Bishop Elko to Cardinal Tisserant himself. The Ruthenian hierarchy may look different, but it is an extension of the Latin church, after all.]

This, far more than C Sandri’s remark, is a slap in the face. I think such efforts to undermine bishops is a bit much. And the idea is all wrong. The only BCC Bishop removed by Rome , apart from canonical impediment, was ousted because of Latinizing. That is the reality. The history of our Bishops is colorful. Too colorful to suggest that they are Roman puppets.

He is fighting the good fight.

Ahh who is he fighting? And what? We’ve moved from celibacy to priestly famous. Interesting.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why is Rome even making suggestions to us in the first place?

 

[dvdjs]

Mickey:

Is there an unspoken directive from Rome to the Ruthenian bishops that states:

“Even though your tradition allows for the ordination of married men to the priesthood…you will not do so?”

No one on this forum is competent to answer this question. But what facts support it?

 

[dvdjs]

Hesychios:

They should try it.

Just keep doing it as often as they feel necessary, or do like the Ukrainians used to do and train the married or engaged men at Ss Cyril and Methodios seminary and then send the to Europe for ordination. Just keep doing it and ignore complaints from any direction. Ultimately they will win because Rome would not risk the scandal of removing a Ruthenian bishop for that reason, it would be too newsworthy and ‘cause scandal’ among the Latin faithful.

They won’t though. The Ruthenian bishops are bred to obedience (an admirable quality in itself) and will not assert themselves in such a way.

Mickey:

So Rome is basically saying not to even bother asking permission because you will be denied.

Truly, Fr Thomas’ letter is relevant and courageous.

Who is speaking for Rome?

 

[dvdjs]

ConstantineTG:

Perhaps it is indeed impossible to practice the Orthodox faith within the Catholic communion.

Are you suggesting that married priests are essential to the orthodox faith? Are you asserting that cibate priests are essential to that catholic faith? I don’t get the point.

 

[dvdjs]

ConstantineTG:

Why is Rome even making suggestions to us in the first place?

Why not ? Sui juris does not mean incommunicado.

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs:

Why not ? Sui juris does not mean incommunicado.

BCCantor: I want to get to the points that you raise, but am traveling ; editing on the iPad is too hard. But what you have written is worthy if considerable discussion.

 

[Mickey]

ConstantineTG:

Perhaps it is indeed impossible to practice the Orthodox faith within the Catholic communion.

Perhaps. I remember about ten years ago while I was still in the Ruthenian Catholic Church. My good friend (married) was very zealous for the diaconate (supported by his parish priest). One day he approached the Metropolitan and told him he was very excited about beginning his studies toward the diaconate and was hopeful of ordination to the priesthood one day. The Metropolitan, knowing he was married, responded something to the effect of: “That will never happen.”

 

[dcointin]

Mickey:

Perhaps. I remember about ten years ago while I was still in the Ruthenian Catholic Church. My good friend (married) was very zealous for the diaconate (supported by his parish priest). One day he approached the Metropolitan and told him he was very excited about beginning his studies toward the diaconate and was hopeful of ordination to the priesthood one day. The Metropolitan, knowing he was married, responded something to the effect of: “That will never happen.”

For the life of me I’ll never understand Rome’s intractability on this issue.

 

[ConstantineTG]

dvdjs:

Why not ? Sui juris does not mean incommunicado.

Sui juris means self governing. If Rome is interfering, then we are not self governing, but being governed from the outside.

 

[ConstantineTG]

dvdjs:

Are you suggesting that married priests are essential to the orthodox faith? Are you asserting that cibate priests are essential to that catholic faith? I don’t get the point.

I am suggesting that we cannot practice the Orthodox faith faithfully because we are in communion with Rome. They will always have an influence over us and thus dictate how we practice the faith. Married priesthood is just one of them.

You keep going over and over about “is it essential to the faith? Is it a big deal?” You are correct, it is NOT essential to the faith and it is NOT a big deal. So why is Rome making it a big deal? Why do they have to comment on it at all? Are we less Catholic for having married priests?

 

[Julia_Mae]

dvdjs:

I wish, I pray that we could get over our inferiority complex, take the chip off our shoulder, and show courage - the simplest courage just to be ourselves. That doesn’t require a thing from the Latins, .

We could applaud. :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

This thread was removed from the forums pending confirmation that Fr. Thomas Loya wrote it and that he approved it for distribution. While it was off the boards, it was pruned back to the place where on-topic charitable dialogue was taking place.

Father Thomas confirmed with us that the text is his and asked us to make his intent clear.

The intent of Father Thomas’ letter is for the good of the whole Church, in particular the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America. He personally remains fiercely loyal to Rome, the Pope, and the reunions with Rome among the Eastern Catholic Churches. He means no disrespect in anyway to any bishop or administrative body of the Catholic Church. He has absolutely no intention of being “rebellious” or in any way of questioning or taunting union in the Church. Conversely, his hope and intentions are in fact for unity in the whole Church. This in fact is the expressed mission statement of his long running radio program, “Light of the East.” Furthermore, during the Communist oppression of Central and Eastern Europe, his own family shed blood out of loyaly to the Pope of Rome.

• The focus of this forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate in compliance with the stated purpose of the forum. Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism on this forum. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.
• When you have a new topic to discuss, please look for existing threads on the same topic and post to them. If there is not an existing thread on the topic, please start a new one in the appropriate forum instead of inserting an off-topic post into another thread. You may post a link to the new discussion in the original thread.
• Problems with inappropriate content should be reported via the “Report Post” feature. Once the rules are clearly violated, please refrain from responding and instead bring it to the moderator’s attention. Just click the http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/report.gif image in the problematic post and fill out the form.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[dvdjs]

For the life of me I’ll never understand Rome’s intractability on this issue.

For the life of me, I cannot see where Rome was involved in the story told by Mickey.

 

[dvdjs]

Sui juris means self governing. If Rome is interfering, then we are not self governing, but being governed from the outside.

Self-governing countries nevertheless have bilateral and multilateral relationships that constrain their actions. That does not mean that they are not self governing. Ditto with churches.

 

[dvdjs]

I am suggesting that we cannot practice the Orthodox faith faithfully because we are in communion with Rome. They will always have an influence over us and thus dictate how we practice the faith. Married priesthood is just one of them.

You keep going over and over about “is it essential to the faith? Is it a big deal?” You are correct, it is NOT essential to the faith and it is NOT a big deal. So why is Rome making it a big deal? Why do they have to comment on it at all? Are we less Catholic for having married priests?

You claim that Rome is making it a big deal, etc. But I don’t see this in the words of the Cardinal the Pope, or the Eastern visits who were involved in the visit - remarks now posted at byzcath and also posted at the Melkite website. Some may be making a big deal here, but, interestingly, perhaps tellingly, it is not those who were actually participating in the visit.

 

[dvdjs]

Reported over at ByzCath by a deacon who was with Metropolitan William at a clergy conference after the ad limina visit.

The Metropolitan is of the opinion that nothing has changed, that we may proceed with caution. He said that it was reported that some eparchies has soured relations by ordaining priests with a inappropriate training, that is, the program was lacking, even abusive of the dignity and preparation which the Churches in America have come to expect. I have no details of this perception and did not feel that they had to be explained.

For those who jumped at a sentence fragment yanked out of context, sorry, it appears they jumped to a hasty conclusion.

And here is the link to the article about the visit posted at the Melkite website
melkite.org/eparchy/chancery/us-eastern-catholic-bishops-see-power-of-liturgy-for-evangelization

 

[Byz_Guy]

Reported over at ByzCath by a deacon who was with Metropolitan William at a clergy conference after the ad limina visit. For those who jumped at a sentence fragment yanked out of context, sorry, it appears they jumped to a hasty conclusion.

Dvdjs, The deacon on the Byzantine Forum that posted the comment by Metropolitan William introduced it this way:

Now that everyone has calmed down it’s time to offer some follow-up to **the unfortunate and insensitive comment of Cardinal Sandri’s **prior to the North American bishops ad limina visit with the Holy Father.

The deacon was not denying the import of Cardinal Sandri’s comments about celibacy.

I never took the Cardinal’s statement to mean that things were being rolled back to pre-1999. Nor did many of my friends. There was no ‘yanking out of context.’ What I got from the Cardinal’s comments was that the head of the Eastern Congregation encourages celibacy. As Fr. Deacon Paul says, it was a rather “unfortunate and insensitive comment.” The good deacon is not denying Cardinal Sandri’s encouragement towards celibacy for Eastern Catholic priests in the US.

The main issue as I see it is this: Is it proper to leave the decision whether or not to allow Eastern Catholic Churches the right to ordain married men outside of their “traditional territories” to a vote of the Latin hierarchy? (So far, my understanding is that Australia, Canada and the USA are the only countries which have authorized this.) And, then, is it proper to require Eastern Catholic bishops in those few countries which have so authorized this to be required to get dispensations from Rome to ordain married men? Otherwise, it seems people are walking on egg shells on this so as not to enflame the Latin Church (remember how EWTN misreported the original Ruthenian Particular Law which restored a married clergy as a revolt against Rome?).

I see Cardinal Sandri’s comments as a continuation of the second class status given to the Eastern tradition of a married clergy in many Catholic circles. True, this is not Archbishop Ireland/Alexis Toth revisited. But, in many ways, the essential conflict is still with us.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Dvdjs, The deacon on the Byzantine Forum that posted the comment by Metropolitan William introduced it this way:

The deacon was not denying the import of Cardinal Sandri’s comments about celibacy.

I never took the Cardinal’s statement to mean that things were being rolled back to pre-1999. Nor did many of my friends. There was no ‘yanking out of context.’ What I got from the Cardinal’s comments was that the head of the Eastern Congregation encourages celibacy. As Fr. Deacon Paul says, it was a rather “unfortunate and insensitive comment.” The good deacon is not denying Cardinal Sandri’s encouragement towards celibacy for Eastern Catholic priests in the US.

The main issue as I see it is this: Is it proper to leave the decision whether or not to allow Eastern Catholic Churches the right to ordain married men outside of their “traditional territories” to a vote of the Latin hierarchy? (So far, my understanding is that Australia, Canada and the USA are the only countries which have authorized this.) And, then, is it proper to require Eastern Catholic bishops in those few countries which have so authorized this to be required to get dispensations from Rome to ordain married men? Otherwise, it seems people are walking on egg shells on this so as not to enflame the Latin Church (remember how EWTN misreported the original Ruthenian Particular Law which restored a married clergy as a revolt against Rome?).

I see Cardinal Sandri’s comments as a continuation of the second class status given to the Eastern tradition of a married clergy in many Catholic circles. True, this is not Archbishop Ireland/Alexis Toth revisited. But, in many ways, the essential conflict is still with us.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Fr. Tom has sent me a number of comments and has requested that I post them here. I will do so later as time (and my children) allow.