Husband talking about the Greek Orthodox priesthood

[Poor_Soul]

I know schismatic isn’t a likeable word but it isn’t a likeable thing Alex.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

There will always be schimatics as long as there are those that do not submit to the Roman Pontiff. I won’t encourage anyone to committ schism and neither should you if your in communion with Rome.

 

[hazcompat]

All of whom are of the see of Mark and John are cause for joy. They are distinct and self sufficient.The object of Our Fathers Love. The source of True Food.What would they convert from? Politicking is mournful and unnecessary but should not cause separation. One Lord, One Faith, One Cup. We are One Body in the Lord. Through Him with Him, In Him. In the Unity of the Holy Spirit, all Glory and Honor are Yours Almighty Father. Forever and ever. The fire of the Holy Spirit, which is Truth, be in your heart.

peace

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I know schismatic isn’t a likeable word but it isn’t a likeable thing Alex.

There will always be schimatics as long as there are those that do not submit to the Roman Pontiff. I won’t encourage anyone to committ schism and neither should you if your in communion with Rome.

I have NEVER encouraged anyone to leave communion with Rome. I have even tried to “capture” souls.

But in the end, even with the best of texts, it is their decision, not yours or mine.

If you’ll excuse me, that papal submission has given me a bit of a shoulder ache this morning . . .

Do you say such ultramontanist things to your friends? What do they say to you in return?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

All of whom are of the see of Mark and John are cause for joy. They are distinct and self sufficient.The object of Our Fathers Love. The source of True Food.What would they convert from? Politicking is mournful and unnecessary but should not cause separation. One Lord, One Faith, One Cup. We are One Body in the Lord. Through Him with Him, In Him. In the Unity of the Holy Spirit, all Glory and Honor are Yours Almighty Father. Forever and ever. The fire of the Holy Spirit, which is Truth, be in your heart.

peace

You do remind me of a professor of mine who tended not to ever tell us what he thought but quoted extensively from texts.

I once met him for a beer after school and our meeting was really an exchange of bibliographies without much commentary.

Politicking is not only mournful, but shameful.

I thank you for acceptinig my assessment of the current slew of Roman Catholic ecumenical politicians in Rome.

I’m happy to have you on board and in full agreement with me!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I know schismatic isn’t a likeable word but it isn’t a likeable thing Alex.

There will always be schimatics as long as there are those that do not submit to the Roman Pontiff. I won’t encourage anyone to committ schism and neither should you if your in communion with Rome.

And it was actually a reference to “heretic” that came from St Thomas More in the play, “A Man for all Seasons” that you are paraphrasing.

Could you show me where in the last thirty years the Roman Catholic Church referred to the Orthodox as “schismatic?”

There is clearly a very big gap in my reading of contemporary Catholic material on the subject!

Alex

 

[hazcompat]

The only bibliography of necessity is the Holy Spirit. Any appeal to the Saints is a caution. I am a friend of the cross, sealed in the Holy Spirit. My name is in the book of life. With fear and trembling I am working on not blotting it out. It is Holy Mother Teacher Church Who keeps my fleshy heart humble and contrite. We have an unique tool in time at our fingertips. Preseving unique cultural expressions of the truth will be demanding. Ethnicities are qualia.

peace

 

[Poor_Soul]

Do you say such ultramontanist things to your friends? What do they say to you in return?

Alex

They dont have a problem with it because they understand that when I preach the glory of the RC it is not because I believe there is a superiority of Rite but rather because I see the superiority of the Bishop that sits in Saint Peter’s Chair. The same Chair and See any Catholic regardless of Rite would have to be in if they were going to be the Pope.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The only bibliography of necessity is the Holy Spirit. Any appeal to the Saints is a caution. I am a friend of the cross, sealed in the Holy Spirit. My name is in the book of life. With fear and trembling I am working on not blotting it out. It is Holy Mother Teacher Church Who keeps my fleshy heart humble and contrite. We have an unique tool in time at our fingertips. Preseving unique cultural expressions of the truth will be demanding. Ethnicities are qualia.

peace

Yes, but truth is always expressed by us in terms of “qualia” of all kinds. That is why truth is mediated to us and by us.

We can never be 100% certain as to the state of our souls - to do otherwise is to fall prey to a certain prelest or self-delusion.

We must always pray “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner” in perfect and full contrition.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

They dont have a problem with it because they understand that when I preach the glory of the RC it is not because I believe there is a superiority of Rite but rather because I see the superiority of the Bishop that sits in Saint Peter’s Chair. The same Chair and See any Catholic regardless of Rite would have to be in if they were going to be the Pope.

So they see you are special! My friends say the same about me! It’s got to the point that when someone says something really ethereal, I remain silent.

And that seems to freak them all out as they think I’ve come up with a solid attack, but am too nice to blurt it out.

It’s good that they feel like that.

And I don’t disagree with you. I only wish the contemporary popes would exercise their authority over the EC Churches without paying heed to what non-Catholic leaders think.

That sort of politicking harms the prestige of Peter’s Chair.

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I will join in the conversation, perhaps at a little personal risk. To the woman who began the thread, I think it is admirable that your husband is enough of a man of God that he would even consider the priesthood. I believe all men who truly love God consider it at some point in time in their lives, simply out of a desire to serve Him better. Out of curiousity, has he ever considered the married (permanent) diaconate? He may actually be called to that instead of the priesthood. I know a good number of married deacons who are completely happy in their vocation and have no desire to “move up” in the ranks to the priesthood. The diaconate, at least in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is often more of a place of direct service than the priesthood, which is often primarily for the celebration of the Sacraments (not meaning to denigrate the priesthood here, I know there is much more involved).

I think it also wonderful that you are behind him on this and truly willing to consider such a vocation. It is good to keep in mind that a call to the married priesthood (or diaconate for that matter) is not the husband’s call alone. Ultimately it is a vocation for your entire family, and particularly for you and your husband. Both of you will be looked up to as spiritual leaders in your parish, both of you will be required to sacrifice your time and energy in ways you wouldn’t otherwise, both of you will be required to divert your attention sometimes from one another to the members of the parish you are serving. Your marriage and your family will set the standard of marriage and family life in your parish. This is not a thing to be taken lightly (which I’m sure you’re not). I recommend the two of you sit down together and read three small books: St. John Chrysostom’s Treatise on Marriage and Family Life, as well as his Treatise on the Priesthood, and Pope St. Gregory the Great’s Book of Pastoral Rule. These three books in particular reveal the high calling of both the priestly and the marital vocations. If after reading these books together you both feel that God has given your marriage and family the special grace of this vocation, then go for it.

I personally would love it if I were called to such a vocation. But my wife would never hear of it… The more I think on it, the more I believe she’s right. I have a hard enough time fulfilling my vocation as a husband and father, I can’t imagine adding to that the vocation of a priest.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Poor Soul, I believe I understand the point you are trying to make. I don’t think any Catholic in his right mind would encourage someone to become Orthodox, nor do I think any Orthodox would encourage someone to become Catholic. The reality is that calling someone “schismatic” is completely non-constructive. It does not gain converts from the so-called “schismatics,” nor does it keep someone from joining the so-called “schismatics” when they cannot in good conscience remain in communion with Rome. Yes, this does happen. Rome herself has declared that it is permissible for someone to leave communion with her when they cannot in good conscience remain in said communion. If this dear woman’s husband, after much prayer, extensive study and spiritual guidance, cannot in good conscience remain in communion with Rome, then he is permitted to leave. The main point here is that he cannot be forced to stay against his conscience and will. Hurling out threats of eternal damnation ultimately amounts to little more than mind games and manipulation.

The point that our dear brother, Dr. Alex Roman, is trying to make with regards to communion with Rome is that it isn’t the bed of roses that certain ultramontanists and triumphalists make it out to be, especially for the Eastern Catholics of any particular sui iuris Church. The Ukrainians have suffered a great deal because of their loyalty to Rome. Sadly they have not just suffered at the hands of the Russian Orthodox. Many are the martyrs of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church who were killed by their Roman Catholic brethren simply because they were faithful to the liturgical, theological, spiritual, and canonical tradition handed down to them by the Fathers of the Greek/Byzantine East. The Ukrainian Catholic Church of today is suffering a kind of “dry martyrdom” in that Rome will bend over backwards to placate the Patriarchate of Moscow (which has shown itself time and again to be very fickle) to the point of damaging relations with a Church that professes loyalty to her. With friends like these…

 

[lo_amo87]

Phillip, thank you for your honesty and encouragement. I have no idea what the future holds but as long as our marriage and spiritual life are healthy, all we can do is keep learning and digging until we reach the place we are supposed to be!

 

[Patchunky]

According to the canons of the Ukrainian Church, one has to be married only a year before being accepted for Ordination. Of course this would be a person who has been in the faith a while, probably a seminarian already for a couple of years.

Not really… one of my best friend’s was married on Saturday, ordained to the Diaconate on Sunday and was ordained to the Holy Priesthood on the following Sunday.

Ordination took place in Rome and presided over by one of the Ruthenian Bishop’s from the USA:thumbsup:

 

[Poor_Soul]

Thank you for your reply Philip. I would never tell people they are going to hell nor make threats about any sort of punishment that may or may not await them after death. I know God will Judge everyone according to their hearts which is something I cannot look into so I just worry about myself for the most part. Regardless of this I try not to be someone that is light-hearted about sin. Schism whether you like the word or not is a sin against the faith and one of which I felt was being downplayed in this thread. Sins are also never excused even though someone thinks they are justified due to the wrong actions of others in the past. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and so a Rite for a Rite leaves the whole Catholic Church divided.

Now I know people on the forum are very protective of their Rites as well we all should be. We would not be in them unless we loved them and I make no claims here on any Rite being superior to another nor am I trying to justify the actions of those that have done so in the past. I personally love the East and the West and would hate to have the two mixed together or one removed for another. However last time I checked schism was not exclusive to any particular Rite and so my detest for schism is also not exclusive to any particular Rite. I’m not making the statement to not be schismatic because I think all Catholics should be Latinized but rather because I believe all Catholics regardless of Rite should submit to the Pope.

Rome herself has declared that it is permissible for someone to leave communion with her when they cannot in good conscience remain in said communion

Please if you could be so kind as to show me a source for this.

God Bless.

 

[Hesychios]

the biggest problems will come when you have children. Even if you remained a Latin Catholic your children would probably be raised in their father’s faith. Then you will have to explain how it is that daddy is a priest of one religion but mommy follows another.

In my home parish in Chicago we have a Roman Catholic deacon and his family.

All the children (now High Scool and college aged) are Orthodox.

He is only attending our parish about once a month, from what I can tell, but his children are quite active in the choir and assisting at the altar. I think (not sure) they all attend the RC parish once or twice a month.

What this teaches children is that no faith is true. Better for a family to be all of one religion.

I don’t think that is the case at all.

 

[Hesychios]

Your husband could switch to the Eatern Catholic Church and become a married priest. The Ukrainians are especially big on the married clergy. …

According to the canons of the Ukrainian Church, one has to be married only a year before being accepted for Ordination. Of course this would be a person who has been in the faith a while, probably a seminarian already for a couple of years.

I am coming to this conversation late, and this may have been mentioned before.

But if the man’s intention in transferring from the Latin Sui Iuris church to another Sui Iuris church was for ordination, his request for transfer will surely be denied.

If he was to transfer for other legitimate reasons (a genuine conversion of the heart, a love of the spirituality), and eventually discovered a vocation, he would probably have a chance at it (it has happened many times before). But this man already knows he wants to be a priest, he would have to hide that from both bishops in his application to transfer.

But if this man wants to be Orthodox, what in the world are people suggesting he be an Eastern catholic for? To me that suggests that he is not sincerely interested in becoming Orthodox, but just likes the ‘ceremony’ of it. Eastern catholicism is not a substitute for Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy is not a substitute fpor Eastern cattholicism. They are two different things.

I would not respect a man who wanted to be clergy in a church that he did not agree 100% with it’s theology. If I was EC wouldn’t want a priest that did not believe in the Papal dogmas, that lacks integrity. In just the same way I wouldn’t want an Orthodox priest who only became Orthodox because he couldn’t be a priest in the church he believes in, that lacks integrity too.

Why encourage anyone to be a cafeteria catholic? It blows me away.

 

[TrueLight]

And it was actually a reference to “heretic” that came from St Thomas More in the play, “A Man for all Seasons” that you are paraphrasing.

Could you show me where in the last thirty years the Roman Catholic Church referred to the Orthodox as “schismatic?”

There is clearly a very big gap in my reading of contemporary Catholic material on the subject!

Alex

Alex, I thought about you tonight.

I attended a TLM and during the homily, the priest called Protestant and Eastern Orthodox beliefs heresies.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

But if this man wants to be Orthodox, what in the world are people suggesting he be an Eastern catholic for? To me that suggests that he is not sincerely interested in becoming Orthodox, but just likes the ‘ceremony’ of it. Eastern catholicism is not a substitute for Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy is not a substitute fpor Eastern cattholicism. They are two different things.

I would not respect a man who wanted to be clergy in a church that he did not agree 100% with it’s theology. If I was EC wouldn’t want a priest that did not believe in the Papal dogmas, that lacks integrity. In just the same way I wouldn’t want an Orthodox priest who only became Orthodox because he couldn’t be a priest in the church he believes in, that lacks integrity too.

Why encourage anyone to be a cafeteria catholic? It blows me away.

I think people are making the suggestion because:
(1) Eastern Catholicism (much less Oriental Catholicism) is not well-known. Some people may feel attracted to the Byzantine spirituality, theology and praxis, and think that they can ONLY get it in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think it is fair that they are presented the option of Eastern Catholicism.

(2) The man became Catholic, so he obviously thinks something about it is true. If he can experience the Byzantine Tradition as a Catholic, he should be given that option first.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

And it was actually a reference to “heretic” that came from St Thomas More in the play, “A Man for all Seasons” that you are paraphrasing.

Could you show me where in the last thirty years the Roman Catholic Church referred to the Orthodox as “schismatic?”

There is clearly a very big gap in my reading of contemporary Catholic material on the subject!

I understand “schismatic” according to the definition of St. Basil:

**"By schisms **[is meant] men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution."

I’m pretty sure that’s how the Catholic Church officially understands the term, as well.

Do you have any objections to St. Basil’s definition, or any objections to applying it to the current state between Catholics and Orthodox?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Alex, I thought about you tonight.

I attended a TLM and during the homily, the priest called Protestant and Eastern Orthodox beliefs heresies.

I find that quite interesting.