Does this mean you support the Latin Church backing out of areas that were occupied by Eastern Churches first? Greece, Romania, Croatia, Alaska, Czech Republic, et al.?
Just remember that we’ve done the same things in the past.
As a lay RC, I have seen historically that such actions only serve to cause tension and rifts between the RC and our EC brothers and sisters. Let us not forget what happened to the American Ruthenian church.
I can think of one or two tit-for-tat occurrences, but not a case where Western Priests and their parishes were shut down just because it is easier that way.
You have a point.
No bashing, this is just a live-wire issue wirth the eastern churches.
Well said (as was the read of your post).
(Possibly not all of those 100 are married but surely the vast majority are)
No, the situation still stands in Italy. As someone else already reported, there is no parallel hierarchy in place for Eastern Catholics in Italy. So, parishes which serve Romanian and Ukrainian Catholics in Italy are under Latin Bishops. The Romanian Catholic Major Archibishop/Patriarch made the request of the Italian Episcopal Conference to allow married priests from Romania to come into Italy to serve their parishes but the request was refused.
This was also reported on by the Italian news media when discussing the Romanian Catholic/Italian Episcopal Conference conflict:
So, if the Latin-Rite Episcopal Conference of a particular nation does not object, then dispensations can be applied for from the Eastern Congregation in Rome for the ordination of a married Eastern Catholic priest. So, countries such as Italy might not see the allowance of married Eastern Catholic priests for quite awhile if there is objections to this tradition by the Latin Bishops – even if a parallel hierarchy were to be set up.
One would hope that no one would object to married EC priests serving their own parishes in Italy or anywhere else.
Presumably there is Eastern Christian unity with Rome because Eastern Catholics believe that Catholic Church is the true Church that Christ founded and want to be members of it, whatever disagreements about clerical disciplines there may be.
Rome does allow married clergy in the Latin Church - Anglican Ordinariates for example. That being said, one shouldn’t equate the Italian bishops with Rome. The bishops make their own calls on such matters - contrary to popular belief, Rome does NOT micromanage the Church
Question: who decided that the only married priests to be accepted into the Anglican Ordinariate would be converts who are already Anglican priests – and not allow future ordinations of married men belonging to Anglican Use parishes? Also, if Rome doesn’t manage this, why do ordinations of married men as priests (in the Western Church and in all Eastern Catholic Churches outside of their “traditional territories”) require approval from Rome?
It has been codified in the eastern code that the Apostolic See approve:Romanian priests were not assisting at an Italian Conference. The Italian Conference was attempting to limit the function of married Romanian Catholic priests in Italy. I think Romanian Catholic parishes have formed in Italy as refugee parishes, seeking asylum from persecution under communist rule in Romania.
How the Roman Catholic Italian Conference of Bishops has any authority or jurisdiction to limit the function of married Romanian Catholic priest (who fall under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Catholic Conference of Bishops headed by their Major-Archbishop) in any territory whatsoever is beyond me.
Er, isn’t the Bishop of Rome a member of the Episcopal Conference of Italy? He’s also the head of it being the Primate of Italy and all. I mean, most probably there is an “officer-in-charge” who runs the diocese and attends the conference for him, but the Pope is a full member of it and should have influence over it should he want to, even without exercising his Papal authority.
The Cardinal Vicar of Rome is typically President of the Conference, though I’m not sure if that is currently the case. Regardless, the Italian bishops have just as much autonomy as the bishops of any other country. I think Pope Benedict has demonstrated that it is his intention to lead by example and respect his brother bishops and their God-given authority. Why is it that the East constantly wants assurances that the Catholic understanding of primacy respects the autonomy and rights of all bishops, but when something like this comes up everyone demands that the Pope starting butting heads and “bossing” bishops around? I think this decision was most regrettable but it is a local Italian matter not a universal one. If the Romanian priests wish to petition Rome for assistance that would be a different matter.
Rome authorizes the ordination of married priests yes, but in general she grants the local bishops considerable autonomy. Rome could intervene in this situation, but my point was that she rarely (at least in recent memory) overturns the decisions of local bishops, whose divine vocation it is to shepherd their own churches. There are significant differences between national branches of the Latin Church - holy days vary, fasting rules vary, kneeling/standing postures at mass vary, etc.