Greetings, Jeff

I don't think the strong reaction to the Cardinal is because we don't think our celibate priests are happy. I think this has more to do with how Rome views us and how we view ourselves, and how much both of those things need to change.

many years
Tim

He might have meant "Oriental Catholic", like Mardukm

An Orthodox bishop once noted that the Vatican seems to pay more attention to what Orthodox bishops say than what Eastern Catholic bishops say, and that, on more than one occasion he had been asked by an Eastern Catholic bishop to represent the concerns of Eastern Catholics to the Holy See, "because they don't listen to us".

For that reason, I think it would behoove the Orthodox bishops of the United States to send an open letter to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches indicating just how distasteful and unhelpful Cardinal Sandri's comments were, with copies to the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

By the way, I find the whole process of having bishops of one sui juris Church summoned to an interview with the head of a different sui juries Church objectionable. Does anyone think that, when communion is restored, the various Orthodox patriarchs will tolerate such a demand, or that they would allow their suffragan bishops to comply with it.

Voluntary visits for mutual exchange of ideas and concerns is one thing. Mandatory ones are different, and imply a degree of subordination that is not consistent with the Holy See's repeated insistence that restoration of communion will not mean subordination or assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit. Once again, the Vatican is tone deaf to Orthodox concerns and perceptions. How, precisely, can the Orthodox take the Holy See at face value about how good things will be when they are in communion with Rome, when they see the lack of respect extended to the Churches that are already in communion with Rome?

Oh right. I saw the letter "O" and jumped the conclusion "Orthodox" without really thinking about the fact that he said "OC Churches" not "[E]O Churches".

Peter,
We don't know how this will evolve. Try to relate to the Twelve Apostles when Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced to Crucifixion. How could they imagine that anything good could result?

During my own reflection on this situation it has dawned on me that we may be exalting married clergy as a theological litmus test. As we know the married presbyterate is neither dogma nor theological, but a custom. And here we are questioning our faith over this issue.

True, this turn of events is unfortunate and challenging, as are all the crosses that we are asked to carry. Each of us has to turn inward to the Holy Spirit within us to ask guidance. Will our actions set us apart as exemplary Christians, or will it cast us as a part of modern society which rejects all sacrifice? It is up to us and God's plan to eventually learn the answer to your question.


Your brother in Christ,
Fr Deacon Paul

Stuart:

I think both of your posted points should be joined in a letter to Rome by the Orthodox bishops and that it should also be made part of the discussion in any future ecumenical agenda about primacy and how it is exercised. All these academic discussions about primacy can go on until the Second Coming, but until the practical applications currently in place are brought up and labeled for what they are no serious steps to full communion will ever take place.

While we're on that subject, how is it that this cardinal seems to have some sort of authority over heads of sui juris Churches and their suffragan bishops? I would think that the Vatican II documents would have long ago called for the Oriental Congregation to be downgraded in relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches if the documents were to be taken seriously.

Bob

Um, yeah. That's the rub, ain't it?

The fathers of the Council turned out some great stuff. And then they went home, leaving the implementation to the Curia that tried to highjack the Council in the beginning but was rebuffed. So they just drug their feet in implementing them. Maybe some day these will all just disappear and, like the permanent bureaucracy in any other organization, business as usual will continue to be the order of the day.

What would happen if the Eastern Catholic bishops just said "no" to the summons to an ad limina?

Bob

It's divide et impera all over again.

Good.. meaning Roman Church has proclaimed to break Ecumenical and Reunification progress with Orthodox. LOL

While the Orthodox frequently complain about the Eastern Catholic churches in their midst (such as Metropolitan Hilarion's recent comments discussed earlier this year), the reality is that Orthodox leaders who open-minded to dialogue with the Church of Rome (as well as those who profess more suspicion) more accurately view the Eastern Churches as a 'canary' in the mine shaft. The recent developments were received by us with sadness as they indicate a lack of 'oxygen' in the process.

There is no way that any definition of 'primacy' as Rome applies the concept to the Eastern Churches presently in communion with the Holy See would be acceptable to the Orthodox as indicated by Stuart.

Isa is correct. As typically (although not always) used here, EC=Eastern Catholic, OC=Oriental Catholic, EO= Eastern Orthodox, OO=Oriental Orthodox.

Many years,

Neil

There is an article on this subject by Tim Kelleher at On the Square, the blog of First Things magazine. It mentions and quotes Father Thomas Loya's letter to Metropolitan William, and the implications that Cardinal Sandri's words may have on the ecumenical dialogue.

I encourage you to read it and post your comments.