Openness to Eastern Traditions?

[Jon_Paul]

The West has a tradition of married clergy up through the 12th C. It was abolished for reasons of protecting church property from claims of inheritance; part of the issue is the Roman tradition of single priest Parishes.

The married clergy and the celibate clergy coexisted in the early Latin Church. The Latin Church exercised its God-given authority in binding celibacy to the Latin priesthood. It is wholly insulting for you to pin this merely on an issue of protecting church property! Saint Paul spoke of celibacy and its desirability, celibacy is a higher state than marriage, there’s an entire spirituality around the celibate priesthood, and the Latin Church had large swathes of celibate priests long before the 12th century. How dare you degrade an ancient and revered tradition—celibacy—and the Church’s authority, by stating an historical inaccuracy such as the above, that it only exists for reasons for church property?

The East has both married and celibate clergy, both in and outside of Union with Rome. Not all Eastern celibates are monastics, either.

What the schismatic Churches do are of no concern to me. Bu that I was unaware of. I was under the impression that the Eastern Churches did not ordain single men destined for parish life.

For 400 years, Rome didn’t allow concelebration with anyone presiding other than a bishop. This lead to large cathedrals with 15+ altars, and a priest at every one.

Just because it’s tradition doesn’t make it good. Slavery was a tradition, too.

I don’t see anything wrong with this whatsoever. You are implying that the Roman traditions concerning concelebration were somehow bad? Why don’t you just accept that it is a difference that exists in the Latin Church, that developed from our own traditions and spirituality, and should not be looked down upon simply because it is done differently in the East?

Incidentally, on the matter of slavery, you realise that slavery existed in the Bible and was approved of? Of course it was entirely different from the chattel slavery that existed in recent centuries. But slavery is far from being immoral.

 

[Aramis]

What the schismatic Churches do are of no concern to me. Bu that I was unaware of. I was under the impression that the Eastern Churches did not ordain single men destined for parish life.

I’m not talking about schismatic churches. The 20+ eastern churches in union are Fully Catholic, and Fully eastern. And have had married priests the whole time. Which is why there’s a section for them on CA, while the Orthodox are lumped into the “Non-Catholic Religions.”

 

[Aramis]

I don’t see anything wrong with this whatsoever. You are implying that the Roman traditions concerning concelebration were somehow bad? Why don’t you just accept that it is a difference that exists in the Latin Church, that developed from our own traditions and spirituality, and should not be looked down upon simply because it is done differently in the East?

The fathers of Vatican II said it was a problem.

 

[Jon_Paul]

I’m not talking about schismatic churches. The 20+ eastern churches in union are Fully Catholic, and Fully eastern. And have had married priests the whole time. Which is why there’s a section for them on CA, while the Orthodox are lumped into the “Non-Catholic Religions.”

You said:

The East has both married and celibate clergy, both in and outside of Union with Rome. Not all Eastern celibates are monastics, either.

 

[Aramis]

You said:

The sad truth is you’re ignoring that the East includes both Catholics and Non-Catholics, and the praxis of Byzantines has more in common with other byzantines that with Roman, despite about 1/10 of Byzantines being in communion with Rome. Rome has NEVER required the Byzantines outside the US to have unmarried clerics. Not even the Italo-Albanians, in Italy.

 

[Jon_Paul]

The sad truth is you’re ignoring that the East includes both Catholics and Non-Catholics, and the praxis of Byzantines has more in common with other byzantines that with Roman, despite about 1/10 of Byzantines being in communion with Rome.

There is absolutely nothing sad about it. The non-Catholic Eastern Churches are irrelevant to this discussion. I am perfectly aware that the Eastern Catholic Churches have more in common with the schismatic Eastern Churches than they do with the Latin Church. But the only thing that matters is whether one is in schism or not. I really do not understand why you felt the need to mention the Eastern Churches that are in schism.

Rome has NEVER required the Byzantines outside the US to have unmarried clerics. Not even the Italo-Albanians, in Italy.

Again I am perfectly aware of this. I never said Rome has ever required it of Eastern clergy outside of the United States.

 

[Jon_Paul]

The fathers of Vatican II said it was a problem.

The norm in the Latin West remains as that of the individual priest offering the Holy Sacrifice. Furthermore Cardinal Cañizares said that concelebration “is an extraordinary, solemn and public rite, normally presided over by the bishop or his delegate,” and that “the daily concelebrations of priests only, which are practiced ‘privately’…do not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition."

The Latin West has its own liturgical traditions, one which the Second Vatican Council did not do away with nor did it find a “problem” with them. Please show more respect towards the Latin Church’s heritage and its traditions whether they be liturgical or devotional, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
I believe I understand what you’re saying, Jon Paul. But I also believe it’s more complicated than you realize. Suffice it to say, no one (I should hope) is advocating forcing Easternizations on Latin Catholics, like Latinizations were forced on Greek and Oriental Catholics in the past.

Fair point. Nevertheless, “force” is part-and-parcel of most discussions about Latinizations – at least if the participate are, like me, keenly aware of the history.

Regarding the remainder of your post … well, I’m rather short on time tonight (and probably will be tomorrow as well) but anyhow I don’t think I need to say much except you make a lot of good points. (And I see there are a bunch of posts after this ^^ one, which I’ll try to read tomorrow.)

 

[Peter_J]

(And I see there are a bunch of posts after this ^^ one, which I’ll try to read tomorrow.)

Alright, now I’ve done so, although I’m not necessarily glad that I did. IMO this conversation have moved decidedly in the direction of “offensive”.

 

[Jon_Paul]

Alright, now I’ve done so, although I’m not necessarily glad that I did. IMO this conversation have moved decidedly in the direction of “offensive”.

hat have you found to be offensive in my posts?

 

[Rafkqa]

hat have you found to be offensive in my posts?

Jon Paul, I acknowledge that at times the Latin Church may have been asked to look East and adopt some of what is happening. I do not think it is widespread or likely that those calls have or will have an impact on the decision making that happens in the Roman Church.

A good case in point was an article that appeared in a major Sydney newspaper recently.

smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/clerical-error-look-east-for-reason-why-celibacy-vow-should-be-axed-20121114-29ce4.html

Of course we are in the middle of a commission (and ongoing controversy) about abuse in the Church and I found the article greatly offensive. The underlying assumptions are problematic - the suggestion that pedophilia is linked to celibacy. Pedophiles unfortunately come in all shapes and sizes (married, heterosexual, gay, single, young, old - whatever). Secondly we have no evidence that sexual assault has not happened in Eastern Churches (or that it will never happen in the future) and thirdly positions where there is easy access to children and trust will always be attractive to pedophiles e.g teaching etc.

So I think that the article makes an appalling case for celibacy and I agree it is completely deeply offensive to the Latin Churches. However I really do not see it as being something that happens systematically, nor do I see it as really having influence on latin church decision making.

However the problem of latinisations has been much more widespread for the Eastern Churches. The reasons for that have changed over time and sometimes more than one reason has existed at a time.

For me, at least, I think the real difficulty in recent times has come for the large migration that has happened from East to the West. (It has largely not been a phenomena the other way around). That has created an interesting situation in which a lot of Eastern Churches are now in geographical territories where they were not in large number before, yet those Churches in those territories are under some control of the Church of that territory. I mean we all know that even in those areas where there may not have been a direct policy to disallow married priests, their was often a discouragement of it. Another example of the selection of Eastern Bishops. The recent appointment of Eastern Bishops of Eastern Eparchies in the West was not ultimately decided by the individual Eastern Church itself, but by Rome. Not to mention the lack of established Churches for many of those migrants, meant immediate latinisation. I myself was baptised in a latin Catholic Church because the Maronite Church at the time was too far away and indeed I grew up in the Latin Catholic Church most of my life. Some of us went back when the Maronite Churches became established, but some never did.

So while I see some very limited (and really inconsequential examples) of the East imposing its way on the West (or the West itself at times looking to impose Eastern way’s on itself) - I think the reality is that it is nowhere near the influences that have either been imposed (or have been adopted from within) on the East from the West.

 

[newenglandsun]

I have no issue with the term Eastern Church, Church of the East or any of the rest. In fact I have no issue with Churches in the Diaspora in some contexts. Of course I think it is essential to understand, respect and continue to recognise the importance and influence of areas in which our Churches originated to understand our Churches… However what is problematic is when that term is being used and creates as sense of illegitimacy for those Eastern Churches in the West ( some of which have been around for centuries) as if they are still makeshift hubs to serve the particular linguistic needs of a the particular migrant community. Further when they are not properly engaged and recognised in the decision making processes of the particular Eastern Church as a whole, especially sometimes because their needs and challenges are so different to the Church which remains in the East.

Also the idea that it is the Eastern Churches in the west who will forget all ties and traditions has proved itself entirely incorrect. In fact I see them making the most noise the other way (particularly because that is the only thing that is going to differentiate them and set them apart and ensure they survive). Any formal move towards the ‘novus ordo’ has come from the East not the West.

You say that you are a Maronite. Apparently, their history has had an unswerving orthodoxy from what I am aware of. Yet you take no issue with the Church of the East that holds to Nestorianism?

 

[Rafkqa]

You say that you are a Maronite. Apparently, their history has had an unswerving orthodoxy from what I am aware of. Yet you take no issue with the Church of the East that holds to Nestorianism?

Sorry it maythe way I wrote it… When I was talking abut the Church of the East - I did not mean the Nestorian Church. It really should of been churches of the East - as in the overall label

Please look at the post in context. The post was a discussion about the use of the term “diaspora” to describe easterners in the west. It had nothing at all to do with the individual “Church of the East” as in the Nestorian Church."

 

[Denho]

Sorry it maythe way I wrote it… When I was talking abut the Church of the East - I did not mean the Nestorian Church. It really should of been churches of the East - as in the overall label

Please look at the post in context. The post was a discussion about the use of the term “diaspora” to describe easterners in the west. It had nothing at all to do with the individual “Church of the East” as in the Nestorian Church."

I do believe that the members of the Church of the East would take umbrage at being called “Nestorian” in a pejorative sense just as members of the Oriental Orthodox Communion take offense at being labeled Monophysite.

 

[Rafkqa]

I do believe that the members of the Church of the East would take umbrage at being called “Nestorian” in a pejorative sense just as members of the Oriental Orthodox Communion take offense at being labeled Monophysite.

Ok yes I agree they may… I was just trying to make the point that I was not referring to them… It may help if the post was just read in context of the discussion and understood to be about the label ‘diaspora’ and nothing to do with nestorianism…

 

[malphono]

There was a thread here a couple years back that pretty well dispelled the myth of “Nestorianism” in the ACoE. Among other noteworthy posts in that thread is [post=8261757]Alex’s[/post] truly excellent contribution.

There are, as well, notable posts in other threads from the past dispelling the myth of “monophysitism” in the SOC. A search should bring them up.

 

[Peter_J]

There was a thread here a couple years back that pretty well dispelled the myth of “Nestorianism” in the ACoE. Among other noteworthy posts in that thread is [post=8261757]Alex’s[/post] truly excellent contribution.

From there: “The Assyrian Church … repudiates Nestorianism.”

Not to beat this to death, but my understanding is that many in the ACoE would not put it that way. Rather, they’d say that they repudiate what some call “Nestorianism” but which was never held by Nestorius.

 

[malphono]

From there: “The Assyrian Church … repudiates Nestorianism.”

Not to beat this to death, but my understanding is that many in the ACoE would not put it that way. Rather, they’d say that they repudiate what some call “Nestorianism” but which was never held by Nestorius.

Is this a “tomato-tomAHto” moment?

In any case, perhaps antgaria or ronyodish will weigh-in with a comment.

 

[Casilda]

Plus, Christianity arrives in southeast asia mostly with portugese and british crews carrying their priests.

For what it’s worth, the Anglican Church is considered to be Roman Rite, even tho’ it’s outside the church.

I thought that too, about Christianity in SE Asia, but then I discovered St.Thomas Christians in India. Seems the Portuguese MET Indians who were already Christians

youtube.com/watch?v=tVmArUDvRu4

 

[Peter_J]

Is this a “tomato-tomAHto” moment?

Arguably, although I wouldn’t have worded it thus.

Ultimately, it boils down to the question of how much we care about whether Nestorius has been unduly vilified (or unduly whatever-the-opposite-is).