How so? Unless you are saying that priestly marriage is MANDATORY? If the East truly understood that priestly marriage/celibacy was not mandatory, then they would not be scandalized by seeing celibate priests, would they? Doesn’t your argument expose another hypocrisy in the Eastern polemic?
No.
I went to Latin school, and heard all how marriage is incompatable with the priesthood. A real spiritual pride, nay arrogance, which I see steming, among other things, from St. Jerome’s attitude “I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins.” (Jerome’s Letter XXII to Eustochium) (no, on many fronts I am not a fan of Jerome, one of the only differences between my priest and me). And Abelard’s statement that marrigage was the only sacrament that didn’t give grace (!) I used to hear a lot about the purity of the celibate state as an argument against married clergy, but that has evaporated as of late.
Btw, we do have similar problems with some monastics in the Orthodox Church. One monk I know stated that besides the marriage rite, there was NO liturgical text that praised marriage. To this I could only reply, "Yes, that’s why I love the hymn of Pascha where we sing that Christ "comes forth from the tomb like a monk from his monastic cell! (the text reads “like a bride groom from a bridal chamber”).
If the Latins could keep their attitude to themselves, no, it would not be a problem. But they can’t, or haven’t. I have heard often the married clergy of the East described as a sure sign of decadence, attitudes that they feel no compuction to spout out in the East. Like the Judaizers amont the gentiles at Galatia, these for what ever reason, I won’t bother to rationalize, were (are?) hell bent on troubling consciences.
The Coptic Orthodox Church has a overmonastic streak in it (e.g. a ruling that only martyrs and monastics can be canonized). But I never came across, either from monks or those in the world, the separation that celibacy has made between the clergy and laity among the Latins. Never.
By what rationale could you conclude that breaking the unity of the Church to maintain a small “t” tradition is more important than the unity of the Church? Please explain. Once again, have not the Eastern Orthodox learned the lessons of the incident regarding Pope St. Victor and the Eastern controversy?
Yes. Sic semper tyrannis.
Breaking “unity” only from Rome’s vantagepoint. We’ve got a different view.
Marrige is a big T. Hence the rational given for the elaborate annullment scheme of the Latin church.
Celibate clergy was one of the things Humbert demanded when he came into OUR Cathedral in OUR Patriarchal See and excommuciated US when WE kept to OUR tradition and discipline, which was that of the Apostles and Fathers, and of course St. Peter himself.
It is the Latin’s who couldn’t keep their small t’s to themselves, and made this a big T, as in Trouble, Test, and Trample.
As St. John of Damascus said, a small thing is not a small thing, if it leads to something great.
A small t is not a small t if it leads to a capital T.
And the inundation of Latinization? A few samll t’s here, a few small t’s there, and soon a critical mass and the realization that there was no Eastern Rites to speak of.
According to the terms of union (the whole I idea of which I still can’t wrap myself around. We have no terms of union but the Creed and councils) promises were made for obedience and submission. The pope wasn’t delivering (even back in Austro-Hungary).
Unity of the Church? St. Alexis learned the Truth of what the Orthodox had said about “union” with Rome on Rome’s terms. I know of priests with similar stories, including the one who founded the Chruch where I was received (his fifth parish that he founded with sheep brought back).
Ireland’s acts, which he was free to pursue and which became enshrined in the cum data fuerit set back the uniates how far? In the name of weak consciences they were supposed to accept extinction? Yes, I know you say he acted wrongly. Did he? Did the pope of Rome think so? It’s not a matter for us: we’re willing to honor Ireland as the Father of the Orthodox Church in America.
ossibility) of scandal with married clergy. They didn’t like iconstasis, they didn’t like DL in a language not Latin, etc. In short, they didn’t like anything not Latin in the fullest sense of the word.
The ROC’s internal struggles are its own. Only when they make hypocritical claims do I even mention them.
