H
- Status
A
a_pilgrim
Guest
I am not sure I get much of anything that Pro Domina has shared with us in this thread. 
But OK.
But OK.
A
Aramis
Guest
I’m not certain either, but sure is annoying and highly condescending about the Eastern Churches, be they in union or not.I am not sure I get much of anything that Pro Domina has shared with us in this thread.
But OK.
It comes across as Latin Triumphalism gone rampant, and denying the separate and equal status of the Eastern Catholics, and the validity of both Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox.
V
vocatio
Guest
Pro Domina, You need to slow down a bit. Your wrong about some things that you say. But some of what you’re saying is okay.So Antioch has been for 2008 years the most tactiful diplomatic corp and not Rome?
…
No doubt Antioch was the first. But the Church is the Roman Catholic Church not the Antiochian Catholic Church.
…
But you can compare the grandiousity of their vocations.
Rethink your math first of all. 2008 - 33 = 1975 years. We typically round it to the nearest thousand years…
So 2000 would be great. I wouldn’t worry about our brothers and sisters that possess equal sacraments. You must remember that their Bishops are celebate too. I don’t see anyone rallying for married priests here.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I also think that Pro Domina’s basic premise as to what Church means is off. So with these two things I think an intelligent discussion is impossible.
Then you have not been around here for long as we are rallying for the married priesthood in the Eastern (Byzantine) Churches as is our Tradition.
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
Separate but equal?
Geez it has been a couple of years since they abolished segregation.
But seriously, that separate but equal thing is just the spirit of the the EOs. They want to be buddies but everyone is their own king and no one is superior to the other. That is egalitarianism.
So I shall continue to defend the utter superiority of Rome above EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING and that married priests are a thing the Church allowed to prevent divisions but in the future it will be abolished; the Church always progresses to perfection so an imperfect practice cannot remain.
Geez it has been a couple of years since they abolished segregation.
But seriously, that separate but equal thing is just the spirit of the the EOs. They want to be buddies but everyone is their own king and no one is superior to the other. That is egalitarianism.
So I shall continue to defend the utter superiority of Rome above EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING and that married priests are a thing the Church allowed to prevent divisions but in the future it will be abolished; the Church always progresses to perfection so an imperfect practice cannot remain.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
So I shall continue to defend the utter superiority of Rome above EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING and that married priests are a thing the Church allowed to prevent divisions but in the future it will be abolished; the Church always progresses to perfection so an imperfect practice cannot remain.
With that kind of thinking, the Eastern and Western Churches will never reunite. Thanks for your very ecumenically-minded viewpoints!
Ungcsertezs
With that kind of thinking, the Eastern and Western Churches will never reunite. Thanks for your very ecumenically-minded viewpoints!
Ungcsertezs
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think part of the problem is that there is a great deal of angst in the Latin church over mandatory celibacy. It is quite obvious that there are people in the Latin church willing to see a change in the Latin church’s rule. So some people project this controversy into the east where it does not belong.
The Eastern practice (having a strong tradition of celibacy as well, but as an option) can appear to be like the camels nose under the tent. Better to smack it quick than take a risk. What may be overlooked is that the entire time celibacy has been mandatory in the west it has been optional in the east, this is nothing new.
Everyone knows that the East has a high regard for celibacy. The right to be a celibate priest is in no danger from eastern Christians. We admire and respect our celibate priests and brothers.
We simply want it recognized that a married priest is no less a priest. We want our Eastern priests, all of them, to be respected. They stand in the flame.
Married priests are IN NO WAY less than perfect, nor less than desireable nor less than capable. They are icons of Christ, they stand in persona Christi.
H
Hesychios
Guest
You wouldn’t happen to be a convert, would you?
V
vocatio
Guest
V
vocatio
Guest
I think you miss understand my intention with my statement. I’m saying that I’m not rallying to get the Latin Rite to allow married priests. That’s up to the Holy Spirit. But I do strongly support it. I also am very very inspired by our married priests that give all that they have and see them as equal to all other priests in the Catholic Church. I even love our Orhtodox brothers for their service. It’s not easy being a priest. I root’n for all of our priests. If you remember me, then you’ll know a bit about my story of feeling called but sort of stuck now that I’m married. I feel that I grew up in the wrong rite and suspect that my family crosseed sometime in the past from the Eastern Church to the Latin Church. My grandfather also went to the seminary as I did. I feel called to both but can’t do anything about it since my wife is a recent convert and really loves the Latin Church. It’s an anxiety issue with her. I’m just happy she’s Catholic now. Praise God.
V
vocatio
Guest
V
vocatio
Guest
Your thinking is severely disordered. You obviously don’t have a clue I saddened to say. It’s time to crack open the CCC and do some more reading. What’s the name of the latest Papal Encyclical regarding the Eastern Church? You must not realize that we ALL together make up the Catholic Church…the Church of Christ. Something’s not clicking.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
So I shall continue to defend the utter superiority of Rome above EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING
"The Church of Christ is not Latin, or Greek, or Slav, but Catholic, and Greeks, Latins, and Slavs are equal in the eyes of the Holy See." It was either St. Pius X or Pius XII (sorry, I forget which) who said this, therefore the Pope disagrees with you.
and that married priests are a thing the Church allowed to prevent divisions but in the future it will be abolished;
Not likely.
the Church always progresses to perfection so an imperfect practice cannot remain.
**In other words, the Roman Church will eventually allow the ordination of married men to the priesthood as the norm.
**
"The Church of Christ is not Latin, or Greek, or Slav, but Catholic, and Greeks, Latins, and Slavs are equal in the eyes of the Holy See." It was either St. Pius X or Pius XII (sorry, I forget which) who said this, therefore the Pope disagrees with you.
and that married priests are a thing the Church allowed to prevent divisions but in the future it will be abolished;
Not likely.
the Church always progresses to perfection so an imperfect practice cannot remain.
**In other words, the Roman Church will eventually allow the ordination of married men to the priesthood as the norm.
**
A
Aramis
Guest
But sometimes it detours, your grace, sometimes it detours.So I shall continue to defend the utter superiority of Rome above EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING
"The Church of Christ is not Latin, or Greek, or Slav, but Catholic, and Greeks, Latins, and Slavs are equal in the eyes of the Holy See." It was either St. Pius X or Pius XII (sorry, I forget which) who said this, therefore the Pope disagrees with you.
and that married priests are a thing the Church allowed to prevent divisions but in the future it will be abolished;
Not likely.
the Church always progresses to perfection so an imperfect practice cannot remain.
**In other words, the Roman Church will eventually allow the ordination of married men to the priesthood as the norm.
**
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
Married priests in the West?
Only if after Pope Benedict we have another change of poles.
Anyhow, St. Paul leaves it clear that marriage is inferior to the priesthood and that celebacy is superior to the married life.
So if we want to go for what is superior and more perfect than all inferior things must be eventually abolished.
And by the way, I can care less about ecumenism if it means we have to lower ourselves to them than them to us. And that is entirely moral and theological. Our Lord Jesus Christ already died for us so that the Church needn’t be massacred as well with perverse ways.
Only if after Pope Benedict we have another change of poles.
Anyhow, St. Paul leaves it clear that marriage is inferior to the priesthood and that celebacy is superior to the married life.
So if we want to go for what is superior and more perfect than all inferior things must be eventually abolished.
And by the way, I can care less about ecumenism if it means we have to lower ourselves to them than them to us. And that is entirely moral and theological. Our Lord Jesus Christ already died for us so that the Church needn’t be massacred as well with perverse ways.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
-]-]/-]/-]
Ungcsertezs
Obviously you are killings us, the many Eastern and Oriental PARTICULAR CHURCH members in union w/Rome, with your never ending kindness. Thank you sir/madames, may we have more, please!
Ungcsertezs
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**
Anyhow, St. Paul leaves it clear that marriage is inferior to the priesthood and that celebacy is superior to the married life. **
No, he doesn’t.
So if we want to go for what is superior and more perfect than all inferior things must be eventually abolished.
**Which means returning to the apostolic custom and original Western practice of allowing married men to become priests.
After all, when you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible.
**
Anyhow, St. Paul leaves it clear that marriage is inferior to the priesthood and that celebacy is superior to the married life. **
No, he doesn’t.
So if we want to go for what is superior and more perfect than all inferior things must be eventually abolished.
**Which means returning to the apostolic custom and original Western practice of allowing married men to become priests.
After all, when you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible.
**
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Our Lord Jesus Christ already died for us so that the Church needn’t be massacred as well with perverse ways.
And are you saying that the venerable practices of the Eastern Churches–many of them older than anything in the West–are perverse?
And are you saying that the venerable practices of the Eastern Churches–many of them older than anything in the West–are perverse?
A
a_pilgrim
Guest
Pro Domina,
I’m just trying to understand exactly what you’re saying in your posts. Maybe a simple ‘yes/no’ answer to my question will help. Here’s my background:
I am a cradle Catholic… a cradle Byzantine Catholic. I am, and always have been, a canonical member of the (Ruthenian) Byzantine Catholic Church in America. My Church is in* full* communion with the See of Peter. As such, I am absolutely free to worship in and partake of the sacraments in your (Latin) Church, just as you, as a Latin (Roman) Catholic, are free to do so in mine. I am as Catholic as you.
From a liturgical standpoint, my worship practices are virtually identical to those of the Orthodox who also worship in the same, Byzantine tradition. You’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference between my Catholic Divine Liturgy and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy (except for the obvious absence of commemorations of the Holy Father throughout their Liturgy), whereas you’d certainly be aware of striking differences between my Catholic Divine Liturgy and your Catholic Mass, even down to things like the vestments worn by the priest and the form in which we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Despite the fact that I share theological constructs and liturgical praxes with them, I am not Orthodox - I am Catholic.
My Church does not consider Latin to be our “mother tongue,” as does yours. For us it is Old Church Slavonic, a decidely eastern European liturgical dialect that, frankly, Muscovites would undoubtedly be more apt to understand than citizens of the very city where my Holy Father (and yours) resides.
And speaking of our Holy Father, I have ancestors who have given their very lives (literally!) to maintain their communion with him, rather than forfeit that communion and make what would have been for them the an easy, transparent (albeit forced) transfer (theologically and liturgically speaking) to a Church outside of that communion. THAT’S the level of commitment they had to their Catholicism… THAT’S the legacy they passed down to me and other Byzantine Catholics.
Oh… and my current bishop has, validly and licitly, ordained married men to the Catholic preisthood, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread.
…so here’s my simple ‘yes/no’ question to you:
In your eyes, am I as much a Catholic as you?
I’m just trying to understand exactly what you’re saying in your posts. Maybe a simple ‘yes/no’ answer to my question will help. Here’s my background:
I am a cradle Catholic… a cradle Byzantine Catholic. I am, and always have been, a canonical member of the (Ruthenian) Byzantine Catholic Church in America. My Church is in* full* communion with the See of Peter. As such, I am absolutely free to worship in and partake of the sacraments in your (Latin) Church, just as you, as a Latin (Roman) Catholic, are free to do so in mine. I am as Catholic as you.
From a liturgical standpoint, my worship practices are virtually identical to those of the Orthodox who also worship in the same, Byzantine tradition. You’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference between my Catholic Divine Liturgy and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy (except for the obvious absence of commemorations of the Holy Father throughout their Liturgy), whereas you’d certainly be aware of striking differences between my Catholic Divine Liturgy and your Catholic Mass, even down to things like the vestments worn by the priest and the form in which we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Despite the fact that I share theological constructs and liturgical praxes with them, I am not Orthodox - I am Catholic.
My Church does not consider Latin to be our “mother tongue,” as does yours. For us it is Old Church Slavonic, a decidely eastern European liturgical dialect that, frankly, Muscovites would undoubtedly be more apt to understand than citizens of the very city where my Holy Father (and yours) resides.
And speaking of our Holy Father, I have ancestors who have given their very lives (literally!) to maintain their communion with him, rather than forfeit that communion and make what would have been for them the an easy, transparent (albeit forced) transfer (theologically and liturgically speaking) to a Church outside of that communion. THAT’S the level of commitment they had to their Catholicism… THAT’S the legacy they passed down to me and other Byzantine Catholics.
Oh… and my current bishop has, validly and licitly, ordained married men to the Catholic preisthood, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread.
…so here’s my simple ‘yes/no’ question to you:
In your eyes, am I as much a Catholic as you?
- Status