Trying to place curses on people is not exactly loving one’s neighbour. Nevertheless, I responded a little strongly before in anger, so I retract any hostility in my remarks. My apologies.By virtue of our baptism we are siblings, and in full Communion. Despite your misunderstanding and misinformation, and outright extremist incorrectness, your my brother nonetheless… although misinformed… Ain’t that a hoot though, your the one that basically insulted all the Eastern practices and praxis and now your taking offense and calling me a whatever?
I don’t believe I am so we obviously just disagree. The RCC does not accept priestly ordinations unless under special circumstances, meaning, that it is not the norm, meaning, for a very good reason. I’m not quibbling further over this with you.Twice now you have said that I have provoked you. I don’t believe I have. I am afraid that you are just pain incorrect on a number of issues not issues of belief but on matters of fact. The fact is that non ordinariate married priests exist and their existence does make much of this discussion moot
OK. Just sayingI don’t believe I am so we obviously just disagree. The RCC does not accept priestly ordinations unless under special circumstances, meaning, that it is not the norm, meaning, for a very good reason. I’m not quibbling further over this with you.
Thank you again, Vladyka, for your enlightening words. I would simply add the caveat that the opinions of Duanne1966 don’t represent the views of Western Catholicism (let alone Catholicism as a whole embracing the tradition of the West and the traditionof the East), but simply the views of a handful of theologians within the West who wrongly argue against the ancient practice of the married (and sexually active) priesthood. Many such folks make the arguments based off of an unfortunate book that was published by Ignatius Press - a prominent Roman Catholic publishing company in the U.S.
I’m curious to ask you something. You contend that the practice of perpetual sexual continence was only relaxed at Trullo. If I may ask, how is it that the non-Chalcedonians and the Church of the East who do not accept Trullo nevertheless also have the same practice of not requiring total abstinence from conjugal relations?For the record, can you find even one post of mine where I express contempt for married clergy? Or where I have posted that having a married clergy is a bad thing? I do not think you will find one anywhere. I do, for the sake of truth, takes issue with the statement that the East did not practice sexual continence as the norm, as I believe the East’s practice changed at Trullo. How anyone can construe my belief that Trullo changed things, and asking for writings from before Trullo, into a claim that I look down upon married priests, is absurd.
Been a bystander for all of the argument , but frankly this is offensive!No. It is not. It is irreverent and shows great disrespect for many on here to deride the RCC for her appreciation of the priestly sanctity kept holy in the virginal state. I expected a little more from you going by previous posts far gone but obviously got you wrong.
And no, we are not siblings, because such a lack of charity is not even Christian, so you are siblings with some sect not the Catholic Church if this is your best representation. I’d hope other people from eastern churches might be able to offer a little more in terms of civility in the future.
Over and out.
One could easily come to the conclusion that they relaxed their disciplines after they split from Catholicism, whereas the EO were still in union. I know that this is not the conclusion that you draw.I’m curious to ask you something. You contend that the practice of perpetual sexual continence was only relaxed at Trullo. If I may ask, how is it that the non-Chalcedonians and the Church of the East who do not accept Trullo nevertheless also have the same practice of not requiring total abstinence from conjugal relations?
Of note, Cholij is an Eastern Catholic who supports a married priesthood. He further writes:Any direct evidence for rules or customs of marital continence in the East comes from patristic writers rather than from Councils. However, one must bear in mind the possible implicit presence of the rule in the tradition of the impediment of orders to contracting marriage. The Persian Church (which was outside the Byzantine Empire and became Nestorian) did, however, legislate, in the late fifth century, explicitly against the practice of clerical marital continence, at the same time authorizing those already in orders to contract marriage. The Council of Mar Acacius (486), which ratified a similar decision of the Council of Beth Lafath (484), recognized the antiquity of these traditions of celibacy, but abrogated them, rather than as in the West, try to reinforce them. The Council did this in an effort to eradicate or regularize clerical incontinence.37** The previous obligatory character of continence is strongly implied, as is the intrinsic relationship between continence and the impediment of orders.**
Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent bishop at the Council of Nicaea, writes in the Demonstratio Evangelica, I, 9 (3 15-325): «It is fitting, according to Scripture, ‘that a bishop be the husband of an only wife’. But this being understood, it behooves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal intercourse with their wives.»
St Jerome, who had a good knowledge of the Eastern Churches, writes to the priest Vigilantius (406): «What would the Eastern Churches do? What would (those of) Egypt and the Apostolic See do, they who never accept clerics unless they are virgins or continent men, or if they had had a wife, (accept them only) if they give up matrimonial life…» (Adversus Vigilantium, 2).
Epiphanius (315-403), born in Palestine and consecrated bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, condemns all forms of encratism but nonetheless insists that priests themselves are required to live continently, as regulated (he believed) by the apostles. Priestly continence is observed, he maintains, wherever the ecclesiastical canons are adhered to, *human weakness and the shortage of vocations being inadequate reasons for clergy to contravene the rule.*38
Synesius. of Ptolemais, of the Libyan Church, knows that he is expected to live in continence with his wife if made bishop,39 and Palladius the historian reports that a synod presided over by John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the year 400, condemned Antoninus, Bishop of Ephesus,** for doing what was forbidden by the ‘holy laws’ including resuming common life with his wife.**40
Now I have a question for you. Do you agree that the West held continence to be the norm, as stated by several Western councils, from at least the fourth century onward? (You know I believe it to be from the beginning, but for the purpose of this discussion, the fourth century will do.)Canon 10 of Ancyra (314) allows the marriage of a deacon if he makes known his desire at ordination, otherwise it is forbidden. This exception was not accepted by the Chalcedonian Christian Churches (Chalcedon [451], c. 14) and recently doubts have been raised over the authenticity of the canon in its present formulation.
The translation is fine as is the text. I have no problems with it.It is futile to try to argue against Duane1966 who uses a problematic translation of a problematic text and interprets it outside our holy Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I don’t believe that at all.Duane1966 wrongly believes the tradition is the sole texts of the dozens and dozens writers,
Agreed. Nowhere have I ever once stated that those saints were impeccable or infallible. I do believe they are a window to a world that is not how you paint it.who were not without fault (even much valued St. Augustine made several mistakes).
I have no doubt that if I was Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or Martian, that I would approach the texts differently, but still come to the same conclusions.That is because Duane1966 is approaching the texts as a Catholic.
Exactly what Catholics have believed for 2000 years.Eastern Orthodoxy believes the texts of the canons and the texts of our beloved fathers are carried on and interpreted (and they do need interpretation) by the living tradition of our bishops. They are those who are charged with preserving our faith, in them is the Church, in them is entrusted the continuation of the work of our Apostles.
What? This canon is not from before Trullo. This canon is from Trullo, and it is this precise canon which began this whole discussion.So, my dear brothers seeking honest knowledge of ecclesiastical practice of pure and blessed marital relationships of our priests and deacons, if you want to see the practice of time before Trullo, I suggest reading Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, namely:
“(…) nor must he be required at the time of ordination to refrain from lawful intercourse with his own wife.”
And yet there are writings from the early Church whose authors believed continence was mandated from the Apostles. I see it as a gift from Jesus to His Church.A great pity West threw away such a great gift of God to his beloved Church, the married priests.
Again, this is in dispute. I have provided quotes demonstrating what I believe to be the error of your position. You have replied Holy Tradition every time. I too believe in Holy Tradition, but I believe you have the dating wrong on when your Holy Tradition began.We Eastern bishops have nothing against men choosing celibacy and priesthood, but it was always the teaching of the Church that it is a choice.
If you believe, as the West does that sexual continence of the ordained was commanded by the Apostles, then the requirement of celibacy can be looked on as a gift, as giving in to the temptation to have intercourse with your wife, if you were ordained, was looked on as a grievous sin, and would lead to an ordained being expelled from Holy Orders.And over the centuries West took that choice away from thousands of men who had the call both to priesthood and to marriage. It is like telling a man that is hungry and thirsty: You may have a good drink or a god meal, I have both, but I will only give you one of those.
Yup.Do you know what St. John the Apostle preached most often, until the end? “Love each other!”+Gavrilo
Why are you asking for a canon? What is relevant is actually the papal rescript? Surely you know the process, the norms, and procedures that govern the actual enactment and application of this provision for an ordinand of the provision, whether through one of the Ordinariates or not, since you are attempting to discuss it.Please cite the relevant extract from the Canon for this and I’ll concur.
I don’t think that could be any clearerWhy are you asking for a canon? What is relevant is actually the papal rescript? Surely you know the process, the norms, and procedures that govern the actual enactment and application of this provision for an ordinand of the provision, whether through one of the Ordinariates or not, since you are attempting to discuss it.
You are wrong on many points in this thread, as they relate to the Anglican Use Provision with which I am intimately acquainted since it came into existence at the very beginning of the 1980s, thanks to Saint John Paul II and the well loved Cardinal Seper of blessed memory.
From the beginning of the provision, priests who had been Anglican and received into full communion with the Roman Church, with their wives, children, and even their congregations, were ordained and incardinated into dioceses which, by that fact, had married priests. There are married Roman Catholic priests of the Anglican Use serving in many dioceses. They preserve elements of their liturgy, including Mass and the Divine Office, in a book created by the Holy See: The Book of Divine Worship. Their Anglican patrimony is a precious treasure and Rome extols that fact.
Of more recent gift, thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, are the Ordinariates and Anglicanorum coetibus.
I will have more to say about all of this later.
This is not correct. That Saint Peter was accompanied by his wife to Rome is part of the story of the Church’s earliest days and that is cherished to this very day by those who are not just of the Church of Rome but of the local church of the Diocese of Rome where these things are part of the lived experience of the community, it is part of the history we hear and read…it is glimpsed in the art work in the City. No less than Clement of Alexandria, and other venerable sources, relate that Peter and his wife were martyred on the same day and speak to us of their lives. We can visit the places associated with them and walk in their footsteps…and we do.Apart from the Rock upon which all the others stand - who was probably not married when he took this role otherwise his wife would have been mentioned - it is interesting that these other saints were married. Where did you find this information? This goes to prove how valid the document I linked to really is, in that we should all hold to our respective church traditions, codes of practice etc…whether Roman or eastern churches. Until we are told otherwise.
Bless, Your Grace!Cavaradossi is right.
Also, let me quote The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles:
*Canon LI.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman.
*
You, a Catholic, may not believe me, an Eastern Orthodox bishop, but I am telling you it is our holy tradition (which you Catholics tend to suppress in favour of authority, while we may do the very opposite, both of which are a tad wrong) that absolute continece in married deacons, priests and bishops was never the norm in the church. On contrary, continuing in the work of creation as man and woman between deacons, priests and bishops and their wives was the norm. You can pull up any number of authors, and the fact will not change. Such is our holy tradition.
Just accept it and praise God for his wisdom. Marital sex is a lot more than a carnal relationship between a man and a woman. It is a sacred renewal of the Holy Mystery (sacrament) of marriage and the realization thereof. It is just as pure as me baptizing a baby. Each Mystery (sacrament) is Holy Spirit himself, descending into this world. Holy Spirit is in perfect harmony with the Father and the Son. There is simply no way any Mystery be in disharmony with any other Mystery. I am pretty sure your Thomas of Aquinn wrote something along these lines.
Oh, by the way, it is absolutely valid if a deacon or priest marries even after ordination into priesthood. There are precedents for that, and a council ruling.
Prayer for wisdom and love,
+Gavrilo
Yes Roman Catholic Churches do have married priests and have for decades. The Ordinariates are ROMAN Catholic. Both pastoral provision and ordinariate clergy are Roman Catholic with the qualifier of Anglican Use. The pastoral provision is historically older and larger than the Ordinariates.Some Catholic churches have married priests. Roman Catholic churches do not. In the Ordinariate there are - these are Anglican converts. I can see I’m going to have go back to an old thread and regurgitate all this info. once more.
The term Rites is incorrect to differentiate between the different Catholic churches. If you had read the link I provided, you’d see why. It says: ‘churches’ not ‘rites’.
As a Latin priest, I associate myself completely with what is here expressed. It could have been lifted from one of my own lectures.There are a number of big issues here; not least of which is that you are presenting the Roman discipline of a celibate clergy as the Catholic tradition. Not only that, you are presenting it as somehow superior to the married clergy and to marriage itself.
The Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is one of 21+ sui iuris Churches that, together as a communion of Churches, make up the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches, all of which are in communion with the Roman Church, have a very long and ancient history of admitting married men to the priesthood. Many of these married men - along with their wives and families - have provided a great, and oftentimes heroic service to the flocks they minister to. The good Orthodox bishop, who has graced us with his presence, is simply providing a voice for the Eastern tradition here that is held by both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, in re. married clergy. He is, therefore, not just representing Orthodox ideas, but also ideas and traditions held dear by Eastern Catholics as well!
Having had the distinct honour and privilege of working with Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christians as well as Eastern Catholics and married priests who have participated in the pastoral provision and those who have not – I find the comment about revering many saints but none of them married priests offensive in the extreme.There are many saints who we revere and none of them were married priests, so…again, please read the document above.