The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[ConstantineTG]

In fairness, it is both a help and a hinderance. Take the Unions of Brest and Uzhgorod, for example. While on the surface they may have seemed to guarantee a certain existence of largely autonomous Churches in union with Rome, the modern reality is quite different. The Orthodox are quite keenly aware of this, and it presents a more or less permanent cautionary note in the dialogue between the Churches.

Yet, the specific example that generated this sidebar topic is sort of non sequitur, as divergence of accepted practice already exists in the Catholic Church.

No, the problem is not the Catholics accepting the practices and beliefs of the Orthodox. The problem is the Orthodox accepting the practices and beliefs of the Catholics. I think most of you here are only looking at the issue from the Catholic point of view and completely disregarding the Orthodox point of view. “Hey, Rome accepted the ECs, why can’t they accomodate the EOs?” Yes, Rome can do that. The big question is will the EOs accept Rome the way it is today? Communion is a two way street, both sides should accept each other.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No, the problem is not the Catholics accepting the practices and beliefs of the Orthodox. The problem is the Orthodox accepting the practices and beliefs of the Catholics. I think most of you here are only looking at the issue from the Catholic point of view and completely disregarding the Orthodox point of view. “Hey, Rome accepted the ECs, why can’t they accomodate the EOs?” Yes, Rome can do that. The big question is will the EOs accept Rome the way it is today? Communion is a two way street, both sides should accept each other.

I agree that it is more of a problem with the Orthodox accepting Catholic practices than vice versa, but that should not be taken to mean that it’s a one way problem. As you rightly conclude, communion is a two way street, and the Catholic Church must reconcile Orthodox views to its own as well.

As we know, Rome did not fully embrace the ECs “as is” - that was the point of the post you had quoted.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree that it is more of a problem with the Orthodox accepting Catholic practices than vice versa, but that should not be taken to mean that it’s a one way problem. As you rightly conclude, communion is a two way street, and the Catholic Church must reconcile Orthodox views to its own as well.

As we know, Rome did not fully embrace the ECs “as is” - that was the point of the post you had quoted.

But as you pointed out, did Rome really accept ECs as is? Why with all the Latinizations? Why with all the imposition of priestly celibacy? Why with the limiting of canonical territory?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Unfortunately I doubt they will unite again. Unless something huge happens which forces one to unite to the other.

I keep praying for unity anyway.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But as you pointed out, did Rome really accept ECs as is? Why with all the Latinizations? Why with all the imposition of priestly celibacy? Why with the limiting of canonical territory?

No, they didn’t, and we agree that the Orthodox would not tolerate a similar result. That much is well established.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

BTW - I think they are going to lose the priestly celebacy battle, across the board, once and for all. Even the Ruthenian hierarchs will have to cave in given the Ukrainian Church’s insistent stance, and the Melkite Church’s plans to roll forward.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Council of Trent says:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema.

Orthodox faith says:

The Orthodox Church has never formally determined a particular number of Sacraments.

Indeed, while the Orthodox agrees with the 7 Sacraments the Catholic Church has agreed upon, the Orthodox also sees other things as Monastic Tonsuring as a Sacrament. So that is more than 7. Anathema?

 

[ConstantineTG]

BTW - I think they are going to lose the priestly celebacy battle, across the board, once and for all. Even the Ruthenian hierarchs will have to cave in given the Ukrainian Church’s insistent stance, and the Melkite Church’s plans to roll forward.

Sadly, the view of Roman Catholicism on a celibate priest will never change. That is one problem of the Roman Catholic faith that I see, that she introduces a discipline, then introduces teaching around this discipline, and the teachings grow unabated, and the original beliefs are buried. Now they cannot go back on the discipline. This is not only with celibacy but also with the age of Confirmation and First Communion.

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

No, the problem is not the Catholics accepting the practices and beliefs of the Orthodox. The problem is the Orthodox accepting the practices and beliefs of the Catholics. I think most of you here are only looking at the issue from the Catholic point of view and completely disregarding the Orthodox point of view. “Hey, Rome accepted the ECs, why can’t they accomodate the EOs?” Yes, Rome can do that. The big question is will the EOs accept Rome the way it is today? Communion is a two way street, both sides should accept each other.

well spoken, hopefully one day we can all be united :byzsoc:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sadly, the view of Roman Catholicism on a celibate priest will never change.

They can have their view, as long as we can have ours (as promised). That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Pope Benedict XVI and other that this should not come at the expense of vocations to monastic life, which must also be fostered as a revered and honored part of the tradition.

Without this, the episcopacy itself might suffer as a sufficient number of celebate clerics or monastics must be maintained from the particular tradition. Look at the situation in ACROD, where they just elected a new Metropolitan from outside their own Church (a Greek Orthodox archimandrite). It is said there was only one true eligible candidate from the priestly ranks (who refused nomination), given the high percentage of married priests and a lack of monastic vocations.

 

[dzheremi]

I have heard a few times that priestly celibacy is one of the few things in the Latin Church that predates Papal Supremacy. I don’t know if that’s the case, but if it is, it seems that it would be pretty much impossible to get rid of it without fundamentally changing what the Latin Church is. And, of course, given that the ecclesiology of the Roman communion is…well…Roman (in the sense that churches within it are defined as “Catholic” via their relation to Rome, rather than Rome’s relation to them), it seems that any such fundamental change to the character of the Roman Church would seriously modify the nature of that communion. Yes, priestly celibacy is just a discipline, but given its antiquity and the many teachings surrounding it, even I (a disinterested observer) would be pretty dang surprised if it were to be scrapped…

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Sadly, the view of Roman Catholicism on a celibate priest will never change. That is one problem of the Roman Catholic faith that I see, that she introduces a discipline, then introduces teaching around this discipline, and the teachings grow unabated, and the original beliefs are buried. Now they cannot go back on the discipline. This is not only with celibacy but also with the age of Confirmation and First Communion.

Why Sadly? Didn’t our Lord say “others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” Matt 19:12

Wouldn’t you agree that this refers to priestly celibacy? If you do, then why do you see the views of Roman Catholicism sadly?

Are there any documents of the Church that say that age of Confirmation and/or First Communion will never change? Just curious.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Why Sadly? Didn’t our Lord say “others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” Matt 19:12

Wouldn’t you agree that this refers to priestly celibacy? If you do, then why do you see the views of Roman Catholicism sadly?

Are there any documents of the Church that say that age of Confirmation and/or First Communion will never change? Just curious.

Consider my post above on the subject. The married secular priesthood of the East is complemented by monastic life and tradition. The view on celibacy is not much different in the East, other than it being manifest and supported in the context of monastic life and community.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why Sadly? Didn’t our Lord say “others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” Matt 19:12

Wouldn’t you agree that this refers to priestly celibacy? If you do, then why do you see the views of Roman Catholicism sadly?

Are there any documents of the Church that say that age of Confirmation and/or First Communion will never change? Just curious.

Sadly because celibacy was never meant to be mandatory. Even the verse you quotes points to the fact that it is an even greater calling to be celibate, but it should never be imposed. Celibacy is not limited to the priesthood, nor should the priesthood be exclusively for the celibate. Even with the admittance of married men to the priesthood, the Eastern Churches never has any lack of celibate monastics from whom the bishops are chosen.

And also sadly because such rigid discipline is being imposed on Churches who never had that tradition.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They can have their view, as long as we can have ours (as promised). That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Pope Benedict XVI and other that this should not come at the expense of vocations to monastic life, which must also be fostered as a revered and honored part of the tradition.

Without this, the episcopacy itself might suffer as a sufficient number of celebate clerics or monastics must be maintained from the particular tradition. Look at the situation in ACROD, where they just elected a new Metropolitan from outside their own Church (a Greek Orthodox archimandrite). It is said there was only one true eligible candidate from the priestly ranks (who refused nomination), given the high percentage of married priests and a lack of monastic vocations.

I don’t know how ACROD runs their Church. But I come to the realization recently that any healthy Church (and I am talking about the local level here, the one under the omophor of one bishop) should have a good support for monastics. They should have a monastery. I realized that is one thing lacking in our Eparchy, perhaps why I feel a bit spiritually dry lately. The guidance of a monk.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Sadly because celibacy was never meant to be mandatory. Even the verse you quotes points to the fact that it is an even greater calling to be celibate, but it should never be imposed. Celibacy is not limited to the priesthood, nor should the priesthood be exclusively for the celibate. Even with the admittance of married men to the priesthood, the Eastern Churches never has any lack of celibate monastics from whom the bishops are chosen.

And also sadly because such rigid discipline is being imposed on Churches who never had that tradition.

Well I don’t see the sad part of this. If one truly trusts in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (instead of defying it) when it comes to the decision of having a celibate priesthood (for whatever reasons she may have), and one has the vocation of becoming a priest in the Latin rite, then one chooses the become priest and remain celibate. If one decides to Marry, then so be it. The Church forces no one to be celibate. If one doesn’t want to remain celibate, then one shouldn’t choose to become a Priest.

I’m telling you this because I think I may have vocation for the priesthood (I’m not entirely sure yet). But if I decided to be a priest, then I would be more than glad to remain celibate for the Kingdom of God. No one would force me to do so. If I however decided to marry, then that’s fine too, no one forces me to do anything.

So I’m sorry but I just don’t see the “Sad” part of all of this. Its just a matter of choice. imo.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well I don’t see the sad part of this. If one truly trusts in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (instead of defying it) when it comes to the decision of having a celibate priesthood (for whatever reasons she may have), and one has the vocation of becoming a priest in the Latin rite, then one chooses the become priest and remain celibate. If one decides to Marry, then so be it. The Church forces no one to be celibate. If one doesn’t want to remain celibate, then one shouldn’t choose to become a Priest.

I’m telling you this because I think I may have vocation for the priesthood (I’m not entirely sure yet). But if I decided to be a priest, then I would be more than glad to remain celibate for the Kingdom of God. No one would force me to do so. If I however decided to marry, then that’s fine too, no one forces me to do anything.

So I’m sorry but I just don’t see the “Sad” part of all of this. Its just a matter of choice. imo.

One trusts the 2000 year old tradition of the Church. My current priest is married and I don’t see him any less holy than the celibate priests. In fact today I am surrounded by many married priests, both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox. To say that celibacy is needed for the priesthood is just a misguided opinion on the matter. I don’t see why marriage and the priesthood are seen as exclusive from one another. Let us not forget that the father of St. John the Forerunner himself is a priest of the temple.

 

[dzheremi]

Marriage is honorable among all, and the marriage bed is undefiled. (Hebrews 13:4)

(Sorry for the yelling font, but I think it is important.)

 

[Aramis]

It is normative. All priest are required to say Mass once a day and if they don’t have a congregation, how do you think they do that? In the times when the Tridentine Mass was the only form of Mass, priests regularly say private Masses, even when there is another Mass going on. Even the GIRM has the instructions on how to do Mass without a congregation.

Not correct - not since the “new” CIC of 1983, and actually, for most, not since shortly after vatican II.

Roman priests are forbidden to say mass without at least one other present except as an economia. (CIC 906)

Now, it was true of the Roman Church for several centuries, but it hasn’t been normative for 30 years.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wouldn’t go as far as to say celibacy isn’t needed or is a misguided opinion. For sure that is a misguided opinion of the Lord. Jesus Christ never married and was celibate. Its called a discipline, and a human nature, so its willpower vs desire. This you must receive from the Lord…strength

While I agree as far Scripture, marriage, celibate, all there Matthew 19:10-12.

You have to see it in a different light, by thinking this completely through and apply it to yourself. Regardless of who you are at some point you will come to terms with this reality. Or you will be entertaining the thought/action of sexual pleasure for the sake of it…desire. Since for women who grow past the time of conception, then what becomes the purpose for the couple? Certainly not to procreate…but desire? A confused understanding of Love-Marriage as a Sacrament

So in the end reality will be in the drivers seat like it or not. Its a very good discipline to practice lest vice turns to habit. Prayer, fasting self control by understanding the self.

Catholicism of Dummies 101- Mandatory celibacy for the priesthood is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine or a dogma. Theoretically, any pope could modify or dissolve mandatory celibacy at any time, but it’s highly improbable, because it’s been part of the Western Church’s priesthood since the fourth century. Additionally, the Church teaches and affirms that celibacy isn’t just a sacrifice; it’s also a gift.

Since there’s East/West Catholic’s in the postion of the Elect of their Rite, this isn’t an issue. Certainly an aspect to contemplate as the brother above is discerning a life in the Priesthood.