Was the compromise of the catholic faith a compromise to much?

[InquisitorMax]

I would say it’s a generous dispensation. Celibacy is considered a higher estate, in religion.

The model would be Christ, the apostles, the lives of saints and the Virgin Mary herself.

A convert can’t be expected to put away his wife. They have received a binding sacrament together.

The Church may also (I don’t know) may make a calculation that an educated ex-Protestant might save on 20K+ of seminary fees and be a good witness to the Truth of our religion, to boot.

A higher standard is required from Catholics, knowing what we know and being baptised, received Communion from and being confirmed in the One True Faith by successors to the Apostles and through them, the first Catholic priest, Jesus Himself.

So celibacy is entirely appropriate for us. It’s a good sacrifice.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I would say it’s a generous dispensation. Celibacy is considered a higher estate, in religion.

The model would be Christ, the apostles, the lives of saints and the Virgin Mary herself.

A convert can’t be expected to put away his wife. They have received a binding sacrament together.

The Church may also (I don’t know) may make a calculation that an educated ex-Protestant might save on 20K+ of seminary fees and be a good witness to the Truth of our religion, to boot.

A higher standard is required from Catholics, knowing what we know and being baptised, received Communion from and being confirmed in the One True Faith by successors to the Apostles and through them, the first Catholic priest, Jesus Himself.

So celibacy is entirely appropriate for us. It’s a good sacrifice.

At least one Apostle was married, wasn’t he?

Mmm-hmmm.

From another CAF thread:

Re: Were any of the Apostles married?

---

Several of the apostles were married, perhaps all of them. See 1 Corinthians 9:5:

Quote:
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

 

[BernadetteM]

Firstly, these former Anglican priests who have been ordained Catholic priests and there are many and their congregations (if they are bringing them) are allowed to mingle with any Catholics. Many serve Latin Rite parishes and under the Ordinariate will continue to do so. There are Latin Rite priests who help out in Anglican Use Catholic parishes and celebrate the Anglican Use liturgy when the Pastor is not available. There are Bishops who have also celebrated the Anglican Use liturgy. It is true that the more traditional bishops of the Church are more welcoming than others as former Anglo Catholics practice the faith in a very Catholilc tradition that goes back to before the break with Rome. They have continued using chant, genuflecting during the Creed, bowing their heads at the name of Jesus, kneeling at a communion rail to receive Holy Communion, etc.

As our Holy Father said, these Anglicans will be bringing in their “Treasures” to the Church.

Anglican Use parishes have been in existence for over 28 years, so the idea of an Ordinariate is not new. A few have large parishes and many Latin Rite Catholics belong to these parishes. As far as the Church is concerned these priests and people are Latin Rite Catholics who have brought some beautiful traditions with them into the Church.

Pope Benedict is trying to bring back much of the beauty and reverence which has been lost over the past 40 years and these parishes will give another optiion for Catholics who are unhappy with the OF in some of the parishes and are not comfortable with the EF.

I have attended many different Latin Rite parishes and none are exactly the same when celebrating the liturgy.

I know many former Anglican priests who are now Catholic priests and some who are coming into the Ordinariate and they are wonderful priests and very pastoral. They are much more orthodox in their Catholic faith than some Catholic priests who are promoting women priests, homosexual priests etc. to be allowed to become priests.

Unless a person truely knows any of these men, how can one judge them as to their acceptance of the fullness of the Catholic faith.

I feel bad for them, as they are getting persecuted from Anglicans and from some Catholics. Many have sacrificed everything to become part of the True Church. It takes courage to leave your income, home and future behind for the unknown. Many have 5 to 9 children and have been following the Catholic teaching for years and yet are willing to come into the Church not knowing whether the Church will accept their seminary training or if they will have to go through years before being ordained. It will depend on their education and they must go through psycological testing, just as all men who desire to become priests do.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[InquisitorMax]

At least one Apostle was married, wasn’t he?

Mmm-hmmm.

From another CAF thread:

The idea that, because something was the case in the ancient Church, it should be reverted to, and can be reverted to, without negative consequence, is a bad one.

It would be better to examine why things like COTT and priestly celibacy came to be in the Roman Church. Also to examine the current benefits or negative aspects of celibacy.

The ideas that celibacy would make for less scandal or make for a more ‘understanding’ priest are a poor swap for the sacrifice a normal man makes in becoming both a diocesan priest and a celibate. Chastity was valued even by pagans.

The idea that one can sweep away 1500-plus years of tradition, based on current fashion, is a Protestant one.

As to the Apostles being married: I’d guess it’d be odd in those days if they were not.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

What makes you think I was using that example to ‘justify’ married RC priests?

Someone brought up saints and apostles; I wished to point out that many were married. A huge number of saints were married also.

Celibacy is obviously not a requirement for sainthood.

 

[PJM]

LETS COMPARE JUDGMENTS

YOURS:

Originally Posted by johnridgway
Thanks for this, but it does sound very unfair,
A man who is a Roman Catholic and married may not become a priest.
A man who is a priest, either Roman, Eastern or Orthodox, may not marry.
yet a convert who is married can become a priest.

The CC: 1Cor.7: 1-8 “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command.*** I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. ***”

Celebacy is a Chruch practice. It was very common in the early Church for Clerics to be married. And It was after many hundreds of years that the Church make celebacy MANDATORY.

BUT this is a KNOWN and Accepted condition based on God calling them to the Priesthood. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BECOME A PRIEST! ONE OFFERS TO DO SO IN ORDER TO MORE FULLY SERVE GOD; AND GOD PROVIDES THE NECESSARY GRACE FOR THEM TO DO SO.

The idea of “serving TWO Masters” is the common sense logic behind the decission. Any married man and women ought to be able to see the common sense of this requirement. Priesthood is a call from God that does not pay close attention to number of hours worked per day. Most priest work 60 to 80 hours per week. That leaves very little time to be a proper husband and father.

The issue of unfairness friend is your, not that of MOST priest.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[johnridgway]

LETS COMPARE JUDGMENTS

YOURS:

The CC: 1Cor.7: 1-8 “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command.*** I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. ***”

Celebacy is a Chruch practice. It was very common in the early Church for Clerics to be married. And It was after many hundreds of years that the Church make celebacy MANDATORY.

BUT this is a KNOWN and Accepted condition based on God calling them to the Priesthood. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BECOME A PRIEST! ONE OFFERS TO DO SO IN ORDER TO MORE FULLY SERVE GOD; AND GOD PROVIDES THE NECESSARY GRACE FOR THEM TO DO SO.

The idea of “serving TWO Masters” is the common sense logic behind the decission. Any married man and women ought to be able to see the common sense of this requirement. Priesthood is a call from God that does not pay close attention to number of hours worked per day. Most priest work 60 to 80 hours per week. That leaves very little time to be a proper husband and father.

The issue of unfairness friend is your, not that of MOST priest.

God Bless,
Pat

Thank you Pat

God bless you also

 

[Jim27290]

The Ordinariate creating a “protestant/Catholic mix”??



Most of the Ordinariate have been Roman Catholic in every way (vestments, incense, sanctus bells, prayers for the Pope, Saints, Mariology, doctrine) except open communion with Rome since the Oxford Movement… the only difference now is that they are in communion with the Pope rather than just sending him a Christmas card each year.

Personally I don’t quite understand them, in my book if you believe what Rome teaches and worship the same as Rome and want to become part of the Roman Catholic church then go on ahead and join it! I don’t think you need to wait until they make a whole hoo haa and create special categories for you…

 

[BernadetteM]

The Ordinariate creating a “protestant/Catholic mix”??



Most of the Ordinariate have been Roman Catholic in every way (vestments, incense, sanctus bells, prayers for the Pope, Saints, Mariology, doctrine) except open communion with Rome since the Oxford Movement… the only difference now is that they are in communion with the Pope rather than just sending him a Christmas card each year.

Personally I don’t quite understand them, in my book if you believe what Rome teaches and worship the same as Rome and want to become part of the Roman Catholic church then go on ahead and join it! I don’t think you need to wait until they make a whole hoo haa and create special categories for you…

You disagree with the Holy Father. He is the one who has decided that an Ordinariate for former Anglicans is a wonderful addition to the treasures that the Catholic Church already holds. There are many more issues than whether Anglicans use incense, venerate the Blessed Mother etc. The doctrines of the Anglican Communion have changed dramatically over the past 30 years and these are the main reasons that Anglicans have become aware that the Anglican Communion is not Catholic in doctrine and doesn’t practice the faith once delivered to the Apostles. It has been a wake up call for many.

There are many different rites and usages within the Church, this is what makes it universal.

You are welcome to stay within the Anglican Communion and those who choose to leave it and become Catholic keeping all their traditions and patrimony that is fully Catholic are welcome to do so. The CoE was Catholic before Henry VIII and now there is the opportunity for Anglicans to again become part of Christ’s Holy Church bringing their riches of patrimony. I think I will stick with the Holy Father, knowing that the Holy Spirit is the One guiding Pope Benedict.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[johnridgway]

You disagree with the Holy Father. He is the one who has decided that an Ordinariate for former Anglicans is a wonderful addition to the treasures that the Catholic Church already holds. There are many more issues than whether Anglicans use incense, venerate the Blessed Mother etc. The doctrines of the Anglican Communion have changed dramatically over the past 30 years and these are the main reasons that Anglicans have become aware that the Anglican Communion is not Catholic in doctrine and doesn’t practice the faith once delivered to the Apostles. It has been a wake up call for many.

There are many different rites and usages within the Church, this is what makes it universal.

You are welcome to stay within the Anglican Communion and those who choose to leave it and become Catholic keeping all their traditions and patrimony that is fully Catholic are welcome to do so. The CoE was Catholic before Henry VIII and now there is the opportunity for Anglicans to again become part of Christ’s Holy Church bringing their riches of patrimony. I think I will stick with the Holy Father, knowing that the Holy Spirit is the One guiding Pope Benedict.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

I am sorry to say, but what you said on the COE is wrong.

The church up to the time of the split from the Roman church was called the Church in England, it was fully Roman Catholic, and had a great reverence to mama Mary.

Up until King Henry’s death the church had many changes in name, but still remained Roman catholic in nature, the creed that king Henry adopted was almost identical to that used by the Roman church.

while King Henry was alive he was charging the protestants with heresy, and it was not until his son Edward the XI came to the throne that the church of England became Protestant.

Then Queen Mary brought England back to the Roman church for a short while, then from 1558 when queen Elizabeth I took the throne the CoE became truly protestant, and has stayed so until this day.

So how can the Anglican Communion be accepted by Rome? there services go against what Rome teaches.

Until the Anglicans become Catholic in faith and Dogma how can you say they are in communion with Rome? that is just Crazy…

if you are saying that Anglican Communion is accepted part of worship within Rome even the teachings are against Rome, then the same should be open to all religions. so even the Jehovah s Witnesses can be in line with Rome and yet keep there own style of worship.

If this the case, anybody can say they are Catholic, even though have a different faith system. that makes catholic truly Universal, and a monster with many heads.

Is it any wonder the Catholic Orthodox Church don’t want anything to do with Rome.

Yours in Christ

 

[agnes_therese]

So how can the Anglican Communion be accepted by Rome? there services go against what Rome teaches.

Until the Anglicans become Catholic in faith and Dogma how can you say they are in communion with Rome? that is just Crazy…

if you are saying that Anglican Communion is accepted part of worship within Rome even the teachings are against Rome, then the same should be open to all religions. so even the Jehovah s Witnesses can be in line with Rome and yet keep there own style of worship.

If this the case, anybody can say they are Catholic, even though have a different faith system. that makes catholic truly Universal, and a monster with many heads.

It’s obvious from your statements above that you don’t understand what’s happening with the ordinariate. You should step back and do your research before you make wild statements about monsters with many heads.

 

[UnionOfHearts]

was the compromise of the catholic faith a compromise to much?
when the pope agreed to allow Anglican priests, married at that to become catholic priests,
quote
“and that does not mean that worshippers of the Ordinariate will be “mingled in” with Catholic congregations.”
“They will have a special service in their own right,” said Bishop McMahon.
so these so called priests will have there own Anglican / catholic services with there own doctrine.
does this mean that the catholic church is no longer catholic, by faith and by nature, but a new protestant / catholic mix.
in the name of uniting these churches, has the pope created a monster?.

Some basic background on the Anglican church might help here, essentially the church is split into several ‘groups’:

1. Liberal Anglicans - Basically agnostics who don’t accept almost any dogma of the church, the less extreme among them believe in women priests and homosexual priest amongst other things
2. Evangelical Angelican’s- Puritianical Christians who don’t believe in a priesthood, the communion of the saints and so on. Morally however they are quite similar to Catholics
3. High Anglicans- The High Church Movement was essentially founded by Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman before he converted, they all but Catholic in name. Indeed if one is honest they are often more Catholic than many Catholics.

Those who will enter the Ordinariate will be from the High Anglican group, so theres no question of it being a ‘protestant/catholic’ mix. As for them having different practices, its worth pointing out that the Catholic Church in england pre-reformation had its own rite ‘The Sarum Rite’ which had several distinct practices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Ordinariate having different liturgical practices (within reason) from the rest of the church, indeed I hope they revive The Sarum Rite.

The only issue so to speak is the idea of all priests in the Ordinariate being allowed to be married and not celibate, this is somewhat of a novelty in that even in the Eastern Church not all priests are married whereas with the Anglican Tradition it is likely that all would be married. It’s worth pointing out that the ban on clergy being married can be dated back to the third Canon of the Council of Nicea which states ‘This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.’ and therefore contrary to popular belief celibacy is not a Western tradition but a universal one that the Eastern Church later chose to abrogate. Ultimately one must balance up the advantages against the disadvantages, the Ordinariate will God willing lead many souls back to the One True Chuch of Christ and if this is the case then some sacrifices regarding discipline can be made. I should hope however that the same rules as apply to the Eastern Churches would also apply to the Ordinariate namely that widowed priests cannot remarry as else I think that it would be bending discipline a little too far.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I am sorry to say, but what you said on the COE is wrong.

The church up to the time of the split from the Roman church was called the Church in England, it was fully Roman Catholic, and had a great reverence to mama Mary.

Up until King Henry’s death the church had many changes in name, but still remained Roman catholic in nature, the creed that king Henry adopted was almost identical to that used by the Roman church.

while King Henry was alive he was charging the protestants with heresy, and it was not until his son Edward the XI came to the throne that the church of England became Protestant.

Then Queen Mary brought England back to the Roman church for a short while, then from 1558 when queen Elizabeth I took the throne the CoE became truly protestant, and has stayed so until this day.

So how can the Anglican Communion be accepted by Rome? there services go against what Rome teaches.

Until the Anglicans become Catholic in faith and Dogma how can you say they are in communion with Rome? that is just Crazy…

if you are saying that Anglican Communion is accepted part of worship within Rome even the teachings are against Rome, then the same should be open to all religions. so even the Jehovah s Witnesses can be in line with Rome and yet keep there own style of worship.

If this the case, anybody can say they are Catholic, even though have a different faith system. that makes catholic truly Universal, and a monster with many heads.

Is it any wonder the Catholic Orthodox Church don’t want anything to do with Rome.

Yours in Christ

What’s your point in posting these falsehoods? What does it have to do with Benedict UNITING the Church that Henry destroyed?

Why do you fail to mention the outlawing of Catholicism and the many martyrdoms that followed?

 

[paperwight66]

I am sorry to say, but what you said on the COE is wrong.

The church up to the time of the split from the Roman church was called the Church in England, it was fully Roman Catholic, and had a great reverence to mama Mary.

Up until King Henry’s death the church had many changes in name, but still remained Roman catholic in nature, the creed that king Henry adopted was almost identical to that used by the Roman church.

while King Henry was alive he was charging the protestants with heresy, and it was not until his son Edward the XI came to the throne that the church of England became Protestant.

Then Queen Mary brought England back to the Roman church for a short while, then from 1558 when queen Elizabeth I took the throne the CoE became truly protestant, and has stayed so until this day.

/QUOTE]

Your history was acceptable up until then (apart from ‘Edward the X1’ !!! - this must be a mistype for V1, the actual boy-king involved)…

But your history should not have stopped there, as it didn’t take into account the Oxford Movement.

 

[BernadetteM]

Once King Henry ignored the decision of the Pope and got re-married, the communion with Rome was broken. Yes he practiced the same Mass and they retained the Apostolic Succession, but that soon was also destroyed. Within the Anglican Communion there are legitimate Bishops and priests who have been ordained by Old Catholic Bishops, who although the consecrations/ordinations are not licit are valid. This is also fairly new within the past century or so. At this point with women priests and Bishops, as far as I can see there are no longer any valid Bishops or priests. All former Anglican priests/Bishops are being re-ordained as Catholic priests in the Ordinariate.

As far as being celibate there are hundreds of former protestants from different denominations who are married and have been ordained priests. This is not new to the Church. My understanding that in time within the Ordinariate celibate priests will become the norm. This will be a decision made by the Holy Father and the CDF.

The Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision, which has had their own liturgy for 30 years has done very well within the Church, although they have been very limited by liberal Bishops who did not want them bringing in much of the reverence and traditions that have been lost within the Church since the spirit of VII.

The Holy Spirit has opened these Anglicans’ hearts to the truth of the authority of the Church and why to be truely Catholic one must be part of it. They will not be in communion with Rome as the Eastern Rites are, they will be Latin Rite Catholics who celebrate a lilturgy (yet to be determined) hopefully very close to the EF in beautiful English or the vernacular. Anglo Catholics have always used Latin in some settings of their liturgy.

It is a shame that many Catholics and most Anglicans have not grasped what the Ordinariate actually means.

Those who choose to enter the Church through the Ordinariate have been persecuted by many within the Anglican Communion. This is even done by “Anglo Catholics” within the Anglican Communion. The Anglicans who now understand that there are not 3 branches within the Catholic Church are more committed to the Catholic faith than many Catholics I know.

I have been lucky to find a very traditional parish that allows me to see how beautiful the OF Mass can be.

Mother Angelica has sent several of her sisters to San Antonio, TX, where an Anglican Use priest administers the sacraments to them.

As far as differences in the liturgy, I have attended many different Catholic parishes where the liturgy is celebrated differently than others. I have seen priests running up and down the aisles before Mass talking to different members making it impossible to pray and prepare for Mass. Also where the priest and his assistant just sit at the side of the altar and women do everything except for the consecration and canon. Not one man or boy is assisting and the congregation is full of fathers and sons. Within the Ordinariate only males will be in the sancturary, no one socializing until after Mass and much reverence is shown to the Blessed Sacrament. These parishes are producing young men who are entering seminary to become priests.

It is sad to see so many people including Anglicans and Catholics judging what they really know nothing about.

As good Catholics we are under the authority of the Church and must trust that the Church is being led by the Holy Spirit. To do otherwise and as individuals and depart from what the Church has decided is what protestants do. We might disagree with some of the decisions, however, we still must be obedient, knowing that it is being led by God and not men.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Usagi]

So how can the Anglican Communion be accepted by Rome?

The Anglican Communion is not being accepted by Rome. Certain parishes that wish to depart the Anglican Communion are being allowed to come into full communion with Rome, but without completely abandoning the customs and practices of the last 500 years.

there services go against what Rome teaches.

A “high church” Anglican liturgy is very similar to, and indeed derived from, our Mass. Once a formerly-Anglican parish has a validly ordained priest, nothing in the service itself should be “against what Rome teaches.” If there is any such thing, I’m sure it will be modified as part of the transition.

What element of an Anglican liturgy do you see as going against Rome? And do you have reason to believe that the Ordinariate would allow that element in unmodified?

Until the Anglicans become Catholic in faith and Dogma how can you say they are in communion with Rome? that is just Crazy…

“Becoming Catholic in faith and dogma” is exactly what these former Anglicans will be doing.

Your understanding of the Ordinariate seems to be based on partial knowledge, leading to fears that are not really founded. What is it that you think the Pope is offering? And what sorts of Anglicans do you envision taking up that offer? The ones I envision are almost completely Catholic in their beliefs already. I can’t imagine any of the more liberal sorts even considering the offer.

Usagi

 

[Jim27290]

You disagree with the Holy Father.

As a Protestant I consider that part of my job description… on some points at least

He is the one who has decided that an Ordinariate for former Anglicans is a wonderful addition to the treasures that the Catholic Church already holds.

I fail to see how a group of Anglicans who were Roman Catholic in all but name will bring anything new to Rome considering the majority of them have been aping it’s missal and it’s worship/beliefs since the late 1900’s.

There are many more issues than whether Anglicans use incense, venerate the Blessed Mother etc. The doctrines of the Anglican Communion have changed dramatically over the past 30 years and these are the main reasons that Anglicans have become aware that the Anglican Communion is not Catholic in doctrine and doesn’t practice the faith once delivered to the Apostles. It has been a wake up call for many.

But this isn’t the Anglican communion we are talking about, instead it is a small group of Anglo Catholics. The Anglican communion doesn’t decide doctrine within each member church only the respective House of Bishops can do that. How is the Anglican communion not “Catholic in doctrine” or do you mean “Roman” rather than Catholic? As for being a wake up call for many… how many have joined the Ordinariate here in my native Ireland (North and South)?? The answer is NONE.

There are many different rites and usages within the Church, this is what makes it universal.

That’s almost like the Anglican Church which has many different styles of worship which I assume would also make them “universal”… though I would disagree that differences in worship style and/or liturgy is the proof that the church is universal.

I won’t even say something about the guiding of the Pope because I would only cause offence and I have no wish to. But something I will say is that there’s not many Roman Catholics left in Ireland who would say he’s doing a great job.

 

[otjm]

The Old Medic you have shown yourself to be rude with your head stuck up your backside, in discussions you should never get personal. you should never tell anyone they don’t know there own faith and all answers and reply s should be polite and none critical, so don’t dare to call yourself Christian until you address your issues.

It would be better to send a note to the moderator than to take someone on in the forum. His comments were unduly sharp, but your response is not exactly charitable either.

]I would like to point out that these so called priests that I mentioned had not yet been ordained into the catholic church, they was at the time still Anglican. so to a Catholics point of view they are not real priests.It sounds as if you have some mixed information - some correct, some not. See previous posts. an Anglican minister can join the Church by a profession of Faith, and he is a Cathoilic; until he is ordained in the Catholic Church he is not acknowledged as a priest; that usually takes some time after he joins.

{QUOTE=johnridgway;8231736]so that is why I brought up the subject of marriage, as from what I could find out there have been no married priests in the Latin rite.

Since most of the married priests in the Latin rite are in the US, that is understandable. There are a goodly number of them.

The fact that we was told they would not mingle with Catholics, but have there own special services, and the fact that there services that they have had for 500 years would be allowed to cross over. raised a few eyebrows and objections.

Not sure where you got your information they could not mingle. That is not factually correct; any baptized Catholic or professed Catholic can attend Mass in any of the rites recognized by the Church. They (the Anglicans who have professed) can most certainly attend a Latin rite Mass - OF or EF, a Maronite rite Mass, a Byzanine rite Mass… and we can attend a Catholic, Anglican rite Mass.

you can not relate this to the eastern church, the eastern church was always catholic, and always has been, same as the orthodox church is catholic. the schism did not stop any of the rites from being catholic.The Anglican rite is closer to the Latin rite than most of the Eastern rites in form. You need to review some English/Church history.

The Anglican church was never part of Catholicism, and never will be, there doctrines are completely against what Catholicism teaches.you might try telling that to Henry the 8th. See above.

So if they are allowed to keep there former traditions, then that would not be catholic.You are confusing tradition with Tradition. Their rite, in large part, goes back to the Catholic rite in place in England at the time of Henry the 8th.

It appears in the largest part the you have a mix of information, misinformation, and to some degree, a lack of information. Thank you for coming to the Forum! I hope the information herein will be helpful.

 

[otjm]

Thanks for this, but it does sound very unfair,
A man who is a Roman Catholic and married may not become a priest.
A man who is a priest, either Roman, Eastern or Orthodox, may not marry.
yet a convert who is married can become a priest.

There are numerous people who feel the same. However, the tradition of not remarrying (after the death of the wife) goes back, it appears, to the earliest Church. And even that rule is not absolute within the Eastern rite (and I would suspect potentially in the Latin rite); where a married priest has young children and the wife dies, with permission he may remarry again in the Eastern rites (or at least in some of them); and I suspect that may occur in the Latin rite among deacons should it occur (I have not heard of specific instances).

It is, however, a really long standing tradition, as in, not likely to change.

I would bet that we would be more likely to see the Latin rite marry ordained men before we ever saw a lifiting of the rule of no remarriage; and as to the odds of the Latin rite, well, we would all probably do better at the craps table in Las Vegas.

 

[otjm]

InquisitorMax:

The idea that, because something was the case in the ancient Church, it should be reverted to, and can be reverted to, without negative consequence, is a bad one.

And the idea that because the early Church did something one way and the alter church did it another way, that the latter is better than the former is also a bad one. those who are hidebound to what occurred 75 years ago too often bring out the charge simply because they don’t like change. The Church is our guide; not some self-proclaimed psuedo magisterial theologian; it is also our guide, not some self-proclaimed, psuedo magisterial psuedo theologian. We have had enough problems on both ends of that spectrum; priests and bishops playing fast and loose, and laity critiquing the Church from their own perspective. Both lack a firm foundation in what the Church thinks and does.