From another list a Romanian Catholic priest reported that the Congregation for the Eastern Churches has asked the Metropolitan to postpone the enactment of the particular law for the Pittsburgh Metropolia, which was schedule to take effect on September 1. Anyone know more about this?

Dear John,
As of this post, we have not received anything official. I have read BB posts, e-mail and an article in "The Catholic Virginian." Until I receive something more official, I would take all posts, etc., with a grain of salt. Why a Romanian "Assistant to the Pastor" would make a comment on this at all is a mystery to me, and only further muddies the waters.

-Fr Ron

I too have read conflicting accounts on the topic of the implementation of the particular law on several sites.

I hope that this will not indicate a "set-back" or untimely delay in the process due to familiar pressures we have seen in the past.

Any clarifications possible would satisfy the concerns of many.

Thank you.

Joe

According to our Syncellus, no delay has been made known to him. The announcement was premature, and I have read a post on CINEast that Metropolitan Judson has condemned the pre-release, but there is nothing hard and fast on whether the delay is in effect or not. It's not like the bishops and seminary are set up to accept married candidates for the presbyterate yet ANYway, and you can decide to fast on Fridays right now, so I see no reason for anxiety about the date of the promulgation.

-Fr Ron

Thank you, Fr. Ron, for your response. I think that the mounumental historic significance of this decision of the part of the Synod, immediately has led to such an enthusiasm on the part of our people that anxiety centers around a protective attitude toward our bishops and support for their decision.

While I was growing up, even the mention of a married clergy or other significant difference from the Roman Church caused acute suspision and even alienation from many in our own establishment. The concern now would be towards a strong stand for the many goals and new levels we have reached to bring us to a day when our complete identity as an indigenous church is about to be completely restored. A good majority of us, I'm sure support our Bishop's decision 100% and stand firm in a committment to our place as a "sui juris" church.

Something to consider is the fact that although the particular law may allow a candidate for the priesthood to be married as of September 1, it will naturally take some time to implement this new provision vis a vis seminary education, parochial considerations, housing, etc. This is something that many will work together on in the upcoming months to provide a smooth transition to the new system.

I appreciate the opportunity to express thoughts on this very significant topic.

Dear Friends,
Christ is among us!
My Protosyncellus has officially informed me that the new particular Law's effective date has been delayed indefinately. Many of the people and clergy of the Parma Eparchy are very upset at this apparent Vatican duplicity. Letters and calls of encouragement to our Hierarchs should be sent. In addition the Oriental Congregation and Apostolic Pro-Nuncio should hear the heartfelt beliefs of the Byzantine Catholic people. Apparently the Vatican is reacting to a group of "traditional" Roman Catholics operating on the Internet and elsewhere insisting that this is an attempt to disrupt our communion with Rome.
I wish that they, the Oriental Congregation, and the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio would leave us alone, and let us spread the GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST!
Your brother in Christ,
the Priest Bryan

I guess what puzzles me is that the negotiations for the new particular law has been going on for some time. I know that the statute on marriage not being an impediment to presbyteral orders has gone back and forth across the Atlantic a few times. So, why the negative reaction from the Eastern Congregation now? They've already reviewed and given official "reception" (meaning approval). If it were just a case of some misunderstandings by the public over some early press reports I would think the way to handle that would be to issue some clarifications or give more detail. But, to go back to discussions on the particular law now after all the discussions which have already taken place and approval once given seems odd, IMHO.
Has an official statement on this been made by the Ruthenian Church? Anyone know?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Dave Brown Medford, Oregon

This "postponement" is extremely unfortunate and upsetting. When our mission received news of the new laws, especially the ordaining of married men to the clergy, everyone was estatic...including those members who were or still are of the Roman rite. And of course, this postponement becomes just one more step backwards in the re-establishing of full communion between the East and the West. The Orthodox will no doubt become that much more withdrawn from and suspicious of Rome's "ecumenical attempts," being even more xenophobic and ethnocentric; while the Roman Church will continue to exert its muscle to be the one and only "Catholic" and "catholic" church, yet at the same time desperately trying to hold on to what seems to be an increasingly disenchanted laity and clergy. Meanwhile, Evangelicals, Charasmatics, and quasi-Christian sects will continue to attract large numbers both here in the U.S. and abroad. The Byzantine/Greek Catholic/Eastern Churches have been considered by some as the doormat between East and West, walked and stepped on continuously. Others have considered us a bridge to bring the Roman Church and Orthodox Churches together so that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ may be proclaimed to all. Door mats are easily overlooked and cast aside. Bridges have firm foundations and do not move. They project themselves high into the air and across great chasms. We need to be bridges in our own right ... and Rite!

[This message has been edited by rick neimiller (edited 08-26-98).]

I just dont get any of this. Why all this bally-who in the 1920's and now, doesnt the Treaty of Brest, in Article 9 state, "The marriage of priests shall remain intact, except for those of bigamists". Now, whats the problem with the Vatican on this? If we are "supposed" to go back to our traditions which were taken away from us, then, why all this fuss? When will the Greek Catholic church be permitted to exist in peace, hasnt she suffered enough? Just my thoughts.

My fear about all this is that, according to our Syncellus, the Particular Law has been accepted by Rome. If it is now the case that the Congregation has reneged on this reception and is delaying the promulgation of the Law, then our being labelled as a church sui iuris is a misnomer at best and a farce at worst, since the truth will seem to be that we have no real right to promulgate our own Law. This has gone beyond what the Particular Law contains and has entered into whether a church sui iuris DOES actually have the right to promulgate laws governing its practices, etc. The Orthodox (and indeed the world!) will see this immediately, and whatever credibility our particular Church or Rome itself may have had, will be lost, IMHO. For the sake of truth and justice, I pray that this delay at the Congregation's request not be official. If it is, what credibility is there in anything that has happened or ever will happen in the ecclesial life of the Church?
-Fr Ron

Father Ron: Thanks for your insites, I just feel that what is said, and what is done are two different things but this time around, people are not going to be "quiet and submit", they cannot use the old arguments of fire and brimestone, fear, intimidation, or even using the former immigrants superstitions to keep people in line. The simple fact is people are educated today, they are reading and they are saying, hey, what is said and what is done are not the same. No wonder the Orthodox church does not trust Rome and it gives them more fuel to stay away from any type of dialog, or agreeements. I myself see this in my own friends who have left the Greek Catholic church and use this as their reason for going to a more democratic church, and, one that lets you retain your faith, and your traditions. Thanks again!

Both Fr. Ron and Joy bring up some extremely important points and considerations brought to light by the recent events.

If the code of canons states that Council of Hierarchs of a church "sui juris" must merely submit particular law for reception by the Holy See before promulgating such law then it remains the right of that particular church to continue to act as it sees fit.

One would have thought that with the great strides made in ecclesiology and theology in general in the last several decades, an apparent infrindgement on the rights of other "self-governing" churches on the part of Rome would have seemed unthinkable.

As the other writers point out, actions such as these carry far over also into the spheres of ecumenism and particularly with relationship to the Orthodox with whom unity is supposedly desired at the soonest possible time.

Those of our church who have transferred to Orthodox jurisdictions have for the great majority of the cases, done so not because of any major doctrinal convictions but for the opportunity to express themselves and their traditions freely and completely. Will this continue to be the route for those that want to follow their Greek Catholic usages and traditions or will strength come from within with our hierarchy, clergy and people standing firm in their decisions and resolutions.

Joe

Joe brings up a very important point. Will the people of the Greek Catholic church "fight" for their rights, or, just roll over and go along with whatever is offered them? Having attended Orthodox churches due to the fact that my own Greek Catholic parish is so far off tract, I can say firsthand the Orthodox use the Greek Catholic church as their prime example for not trusting Rome for anything. Many of my friends have been watching this new development with the married priest issue and all are of the same ideas of "there is no democracy with Rome and if we agree to dialog this will happen to us". There is no way to defend the Greek Catholic church as time and time again, Rome forces her views on the Greek Catholics and those who protest, either end up being silenced, or, having to leave for Orthodox parishes. I for one am tired of being a second class citizen and am waiting to see how this all turns out as, I can see a mistake once (in the 1920's due to the times) but, in this day and age, it is criminal. I just wish the ones who are doing the political manuevers to hold this up would read the Treaty of Brest, or, if they dont want to do that, then tear it up and lets all start from the beginning again (which may not be such a bad idea).

I think it is important to understand how the Eastern Catholic Churches are to relate to the Pope under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. It is true that the Code of Canons calls for the _sui juris_ Churches to submit their particular law to Rome for "reception," but this "reception" as I understand it is not like a certified letter. "Receptio" is also an approval of the proposed particular law. Drafts of the new Ruthenian particular law were going back and forth across the Atlantic for years before there was a "receptio" given. Even once given (as it apparently was) the Pope has the authority in the Eastern Code of Canons to rescend the approval. Canons 43-48 are quite strong about the authority of the Holy See.

Now, I'm not arguing in favor of this situation...I'm an Orthodox Christian myself. But, I think it's important to acknowledge that what has happened here is perfectly lawful under the laws that are in place in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Now, as to whether Orthodox Churches would be willing to submit to such a situation...I think the answer is obvious.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dave Brown Medford, Oregon

I'm just wondering if there were any statements made at the Uniontown pilgrimage about the postponement of the new particular law for the Ruthenian Church?

Dave Brown Medford, Oregon

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 09-10-98).]

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 09-10-98).]