Good News! Ban Lifted

  • Thread starter Thread starter badnewsbarrett
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

badnewsbarrett

Guest
ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-lifts-ban-married-priests-eastern-catholics-diaspora
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23254
cathnewsusa.com/2014/11/vatican-lifts-ban-married-priests-eastern-catholics-diaspora/
usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2014/11/with-married-eastern-catholic-priests.html

Do I have sources? Yes I have sources. On June 14, Pope Francis (signing together with Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches) lifted the 1929/1930 ban on ordaining married Eastern Catholic priests outside their ancestral homelands, which until recently had only been tweaked to the point where approval could be gained on a case-by-case basis. This happened June 14, but news did not go public until November 17 last month.

To be perfectly clear, this was an issue of church law and church discipline that was changed, not a matter of doctrine or dogma that was changed. That would be silly, that doesn’t happen. But matters of church law and discipline can be changed, provided that there is good reason to do so and provided that the right people are given some actionable ideas and quality arguments for change. To law and/or discipline, of course, just to be really really clear.

I’d like to pose a couple of questions along with this piece of news. Question one- for those of you who know anything about it, how would you describe the reasons and motivation for Pope Francis to go through with this decision? And question two, most especially for devout Catholics on this forum- is there any cause or any issue besides this one that you hope is also successful in bringing about some other change in church law or discipline? I suppose there are a lot of groups of people out there asking for all sorts of changes, most of which will not happen. But are there any other ones that you’re particularly aware of, and particularly supportive of?
 
I have no problem with it at all. My question to you as an evangelical, why does this matter to you?
 
robwar said:
I have no problem with it at all. My question to you as an evangelical, why does this matter to you?
Click to expand...
His label as an Evangelical doesn’t require he be a Protestant; he could very well be part of a large and growing Evangelical Catholic community.
 
Neofight said:
His label as an Evangelical doesn’t require he be a Protestant; he could very well be part of a large and growing Evangelical Catholic community.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of that but reading his other posts, he sounds like your standard evangelical.
 
I have no problem with it. The Eastern Churches do some things a little differently. And this doesn’t open the floodgates for married priests in the Latin rite, either. Besides, priestly celibacy is a small-t tradition. But I wouldn’t it past the world to misrepresent this as more of Francis’s “radical” papacy, with progressives gushing and traditionalists panicking.

All-in-all, it is of no consequence. We will have forgotten about it by this time next month.
 
Perhaps this will help our brothers and sisters of the Eastern rites get more vocations.
 
badnewsbarrett said:
ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-lifts-ban-married-priests-eastern-catholics-diaspora
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23254
cathnewsusa.com/2014/11/vatican-lifts-ban-married-priests-eastern-catholics-diaspora/
usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2014/11/with-married-eastern-catholic-priests.html

Do I have sources? Yes I have sources. On June 14, Pope Francis (signing together with Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches) lifted the 1929/1930 ban on ordaining married Eastern Catholic priests outside their ancestral homelands, which until recently had only been tweaked to the point where approval could be gained on a case-by-case basis. This happened June 14, but news did not go public until November 17 last month.

To be perfectly clear, this was an issue of church law and church discipline that was changed, not a matter of doctrine or dogma that was changed. That would be silly, that doesn’t happen. But matters of church law and discipline can be changed, provided that there is good reason to do so and provided that the right people are given some actionable ideas and quality arguments for change. To law and/or discipline, of course, just to be really really clear.

I’d like to pose a couple of questions along with this piece of news. Question one- for those of you who know anything about it, how would you describe the reasons and motivation for Pope Francis to go through with this decision? And question two, most especially for devout Catholics on this forum- is there any cause or any issue besides this one that you hope is also successful in bringing about some other change in church law or discipline? I suppose there are a lot of groups of people out there asking for all sorts of changes, most of which will not happen. But are there any other ones that you’re particularly aware of, and particularly supportive of?
Click to expand...
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation asked H.H. Pope Francis for this change. The commission stated that:“This action would affirm the ancient and legitimate Eastern Christian tradition and would assure the Orthodox that, in the event of the restoration of full communion between the two churches, the traditions of the Orthodox Church would not be questioned,”
The approvals of married ordinations of Eastern Catholic priests outside their ancestral homelands still depends upon the individual approval by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches when the eastern Catholic is in the care of the Latin Catholic Church (without their own hierarch and not in an Ordinariate for Eastern Catholics.) Also not included are the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara. That means for North America, up to nine eastern Catholic Churches are included:Ukrainian, Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Armenian, Chaldean, Romanian, Syrian, Slovak (Canada).
 
Awesome!

Can the O.P. please change your name to goodnewsbarrett?😃

MJ
 
Vico said:
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation asked H.H. Pope Francis for this change. The commission stated that:“This action would affirm the ancient and legitimate Eastern Christian tradition and would assure the Orthodox that, in the event of the restoration of full communion between the two churches, the traditions of the Orthodox Church would not be questioned,”
The approvals of married ordinations of Eastern Catholic priests outside their ancestral homelands still depends upon the individual approval by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches when the eastern Catholic is in the care of the Latin Catholic Church (without their own hierarch and not in an Ordinariate for Eastern Catholics.) Also not included are the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara. That means for North America, up to nine eastern Catholic Churches are included:Ukrainian, Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Armenian, Chaldean, Romanian, Syrian, Slovak (Canada).
Click to expand...
thanks Vico for the clarification.
 
adawgj said:
Perhaps this will help our brothers and sisters of the Eastern rites get more vocations.
Click to expand...
I hope it does too. Already the Eastern Catholics have a higher vocational percentage than the Latin Church. Eastern Catholics account for 2% of the Catholic faithful, but make up 3% of the clergy.
 
Ignatius said:
Just to be clear, Are you an Evangelical Protestant or Non-Denominational, and Evangelical Catholic or an Evangelical Eastern Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Evangelical Protestant or Non-Denominational. As far as I know, the standard meaning of Evangelical when a Christian from the United States says “I’m an Evangelical.” Although I can see how on an Eastern Catholic sub-forum of CAF, there might be some other possibilities that make it less straightforward than when I’m walking around in life. Hope the clarification helps, sorry for the delay in getting back to my thread.
 
Along with this specific news concerning church discipline and law, I do have some curiosity that I hope can be satisfied, and it has to do with the way in which Catholics generally interact with matters of discipline or law, as opposed to doctrine and dogma. Yes I am interested in this particular piece of news and thank you Vico for the additional information, no I am not interested in arguing with the discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin rite as there is nothing in the way of news to talk about and no one is seriously considering changing anything with that, and along with those two points I hope to make a little headway on something else.

I became aware of this issue a few months before this news went public, and now I get to see how Catholics interact with it after that fact too. I’m trying to learn a bit more about how Catholics think about matters of discipline and see how it is that you interact with it through the different steps of the process.

On forums like this, people mostly stick to issues of doctrine or dogma. They talk about things they are required to believe dogmatically and explain why it makes sense for them to do so. When I talk about dogma, I mean required beliefs established authoritatively in a manner that cannot be changed. Some people make a point of spending all their time talking about this and nothing else, so if that is you please find a different thread. I’d like to explore Catholic disciplines- matters that are established by an authority, but not established permanently or in a way that can never be changed.

More specifically, I want to narrow my search to issues of discipline that are under some type of review. I want to find the groups of devout, faithful Catholics who are seeking to change certain disciplines. I want to ensure that the proper authorities are aware of these groups and their goals, and that they support their efforts or at least have no problem with what they’re trying to do. Simply put, I want to find the Catholics who are lobbying for change to a certain discipline, provided that it’s really a discipline and not a doctrine, and provided that it’s something that can legitimately be changed and just might actually be changed. Something like the thing in the OP- completely lifting the ban from 1929/1930.

I admit, there’s a bit of a personal reason why I’m seeking this out. You see, there’s this nasty, unpleasant rumor about Catholics that floats around a bit among Evangelicals and our ilk. I’m sure it’s completely false and there’s absolutely no merit to it, but the rumor goes something like this.

Among Catholics, there’s a tendency to treat everything as if it were doctrine, and wherever Catholic subject matter is concerned, to believe it dogmatically (as if it were authoritatively required) and to avoid forming any type of principled opinion concerning anything of a Catholic nature. Even, and in this case especially, when the conversation is specifically steered intentionally in the direction of matters of discipline, to the exclusion of discussing doctrine or dogma. In matters of discipline- even when it comes to matters that can and very well may be changed at some point in the near future- there is a tendency for a devout Catholic to make sure they are 100% in favor of whatever discipline the Church currently practices at this time, as if they favor a dogmatic approach at all times and are suspicious of any truly principled approach to Catholic matters, even when it’s just discipline and not a doctrine.

So here I am, seeking disconfirming evidence. I’m addressing an unpleasant rumor about Catholics, and I seek disconfirming evidence. This is a nice thing I’m doing. It is not an attack. I am not suggesting that Catholics are actually this way, but I will suggest that if you become upset for undue reasons, you’ll most likely get in the way of me being able to gather the disconfirming evidence that I would like to have. So please, can some of you help me with this?

In order for me to have disconfirming evidence to my satisfaction, I would like to see one of the following things. One- if you could point to a post or a thread that you started on this very issue, the one about lifting the ban, and demonstrate that you were beating the drum for change fairly well before it went public last November, that would be a most welcome contribution. Any similar causes that you took up would also be welcome examples. Two- even though I would disagree with you in principle, if you would like to give a dissenting opinion concerning this thing that Pope Francis has done and tell us why you think the ban should have remained in place, that would certainly count as disconfirming evidence.

Three- and this is the one I would most prefer- if you tell me about any other discipline that you would like to see changed, and ideally if you also tell me about some organized group of devout, faithful Catholics who are lobbying for a change in discipline that they haven’t seen happen yet, but they want it and you want them to be successful. This would be the perfect form of disconfirming evidence.

Telling me that you don’t really concern yourself with this is not disconfirming evidence, it actually lends support to the idea that Catholics only concern themselves with matters of doctrine and with learning what unchanging beliefs are required of them. Telling me that you’re basically happy with all Church discipline and you just happen to agree with everything 100% would also be disqualified from disconfirming evidence, it doesn’t necessarily lend support to the ugly rumors but it sure doesn’t count as disconfirming evidence.

Who can help me with some disconfirming evidence? Is there anyone? I sure hope so.
 
Interesting. A lot of truth to it. But not entirely true.

Maybe this is a “discipline” thing that a lot of faithful Catholics would like to see changed: Male-only altar servers.

Also, a lot of faithful Catholics would like to see the old Latin Mass return, and they were pleased with Benedict’s reforms in that direction.
 
badnewsbarrett said:
… Yes I am interested in this particular piece of news and thank you Vico for the additional information, no I am not interested in arguing with the discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin rite as there is nothing in the way of news to talk about and no one is seriously considering changing anything with that, and along with those two points I hope to make a little headway on something else. …

Who can help me with some disconfirming evidence? Is there anyone? I sure hope so.
Click to expand...
The Latin Church also allows married priests, approved individually, and there are several that I have posted about, mostly that converted to Catholic from Anglican and other Christian religions. Also the eastern Catholics under the care of Latin hierarchy are still approved individually, even though they are not Latin Catholics.

For historical evidence of pursuit of disciplinary law changes, the Byzantine Catholic Church (USA) commission worked to allow married priests as a norm in 1998. That was subsequently modified by Rome so the actual particular laws promulgated in 1999 were revised.Married priesthood restored to U.S. Byzantine Church (From August 16, 1998, Horizons of the Eparchy of Parma)

METROPOLITAN JUDS0N PROCYK. On July 15 he promulgated the new laws for the Byzantine Catholic Meiropolia of Pittsburgh. By Father Nicholas R.A. Rachford, JCL.
PITTSBURGH — A restored married priesthood is contained in one of the 59 statutes of particular law promulgated by Metropolitan Judson Procyk on July 15. They will take effect on Sept. 1, 1998.

The new law is the result of several years of study and discussion by the metropolitans Council of Hierarchs. They were assisted by their Commission on Canonical Affairs composed of a canon lawyer representative from each eparchy and a bishop-chairman. Chairing the commission was Passaic, N.J.'s Bishop Andrew Pataki, also a canon lawyer. Other members were: Father Richard Whetstone of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh; Father Robert Hospodar of the Eparchy of Passaic; Father Nicholas Rachford of the Eparchy of Parma; and Father Philip Acquaro of the Eparchy of Van Nuys, Calif.

While many of the new laws do not represent a change from the past, several, such as the married priesthood, do. …

The Byzantine Particular Law, due to the revision of the 1998 promulgation, became the *Norms *promulgated on June 29, 1999 by the Council of Hierarchs of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. (The hierarchs included Archbishop Judson M. Procyk, Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh; Bishop Andrew Pataki, Bishop of Passaic; Bishop George M. Kuzma, Bishop of Van Nuys; and Bishop Basil M. Schott, Bishop of Parma.) The norms applied from October 1, 1999. The one for priests was:Canon 758 §3
§1. Married men, after completion of the formation prescribed by law, can be admitted to the order of deacon
§2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.
 
badnewsbarrett said:
I admit, there’s a bit of a personal reason why I’m seeking this out. You see, there’s this nasty, unpleasant rumor about Catholics that floats around a bit among Evangelicals and our ilk. I’m sure it’s completely false and there’s absolutely no merit to it, but the rumor goes something like this.

Among Catholics, there’s a tendency to treat everything as if it were doctrine, and wherever Catholic subject matter is concerned, to believe it dogmatically (as if it were authoritatively required) and to avoid forming any type of principled opinion concerning anything of a Catholic nature. Even, and in this case especially, when the conversation is specifically steered intentionally in the direction of matters of discipline, to the exclusion of discussing doctrine or dogma. In matters of discipline- even when it comes to matters that can and very well may be changed at some point in the near future- there is a tendency for a devout Catholic to make sure they are 100% in favor of whatever discipline the Church currently practices at this time, as if they favor a dogmatic approach at all times and are suspicious of any truly principled approach to Catholic matters, even when it’s just discipline and not a doctrine.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/encyclopedia/ecclesiastical-discipline

for speed you can scroll down to “IV. MUTABILITY OF DISCIPLINE” to get your answer on changability
 
badnewsbarrett said:
Among Catholics, there’s a tendency to treat everything as if it were doctrine, and wherever Catholic subject matter is concerned, to believe it dogmatically (as if it were authoritatively required) and to avoid forming any type of principled opinion concerning anything of a Catholic nature.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Really? Apparently they don’t know very many Catholics in real life. 🙂
Even, and in this case especially, when the conversation is specifically steered intentionally in the direction of matters of discipline, to the exclusion of discussing doctrine or dogma. In matters of discipline- even when it comes to matters that can and very well may be changed at some point in the near future- there is a tendency for a devout Catholic to make sure they are 100% in favor of whatever discipline the Church currently practices at this time, as if they favor a dogmatic approach at all times and are suspicious of any truly principled approach to Catholic matters, even when it’s just discipline and not a doctrine.
Click to expand...
Most Catholics try to be obedient to the current discipline of the Church, much as good drivers obey the current speed limits, even though the speed limit might change at some future time, depending on changes in the demographics of this or that neighborhood - more children lowers the speed limit, and fewer children raises it.

They can discuss the fact that young married couples moving into the area means that in two or three years the speed limit will be lowered, without at the same time demanding that everyone drive more slowly than the currently posted speed limit before that day actually comes.

If the fact that they don’t start demanding that everyone start driving more slowly right this very minute seems to indicate that they don’t really believe that the speed limit will be lowered some day, that’s not the problem of the good driver; that’s a problem with his critics.
Three- and this is the one I would most prefer- if you tell me about any other discipline that you would like to see changed, and ideally if you also tell me about some organized group of devout, faithful Catholics who are lobbying for a change in discipline that they haven’t seen happen yet, but they want it and you want them to be successful. This would be the perfect form of disconfirming evidence.
Click to expand...
Theology classes have been opened for women to attend. One day I expect that there will be female theologians working in the Vatican, even, perhaps, advising the Pope. 🙂

I’m not going to picket the Vatican to demand that it happen right this minute, though. I’ll wait until we have some qualified applicants, before I do that. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top