The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
hydra, Kind, Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub
5606 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (2 invisible), 519 guests, and 627 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,756
Posts412,066
Members5,606
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DMD] #381306 06/09/12 03:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
DTBrown Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Originally Posted by DMD

The North American Theological Consultation is going to take up this matter at its fall convocation as both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic representatives thereto expressed their strong concerns over these conflicting developments at the recently concluded session this month.


That is good news! Was there anything put on the web about this? I'd love to read about this.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381307 06/09/12 05:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Diak Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
It seems there is almost an obsession with some here regarding Latin discipline based on mutable law. In the UGCC we ordain married men to the priesthood in the US, have done so for decades, and that's the way it is. The Latins now have as many married priests in North America through the Anglican pastoral provision as all of the Eastern Catholics besides the UGCC combined. While I don't like some of the recent curial comments, as I mentioned previously what is on paper may be one thing but the reality is something else. I do see the concerns of Orthodox observers, however, regarding potential duplicity in some of the statements and what happens "on the ground", and I also share those concerns. It seems some of the curia still have to catch up with understanding the magisterial teaching of their own Pontiff i.e. Orientale Lumen , etc.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381316 06/09/12 08:31 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Quote
"On 20 February 2008, the regular meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the validity of the norm of a binding obligation of celibacy for priests of Eastern Catholic Churches who exercise the ministry outside the canonical territory. The pope, however, has given the Congregation for the Eastern Churches the authority to give a dispensation from this norm, with the approval of the Episcopal Conference in question." (Text here , translated from Italian.)



Isn't language there a bit problematic? That is to say, it speaks as though anyone outside their own territory is in Latin territory, but they could in fact be in the territory of another Eastern Catholic Church.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Peter J] #381318 06/09/12 10:16 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 552
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 552
Quote
...the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the validity of the norm of a binding obligation of celibacy for priests of Eastern Catholic Churches who exercise the ministry outside the canonical territory.


I find it quite ironic that the Vatican seems to resent it when the Patriarchate of Moscow uses this terminology when faced with the presence of Latin missionaries on what they consider their "canonical territory", yet they quickly convoke it when faced with a tradition alien to their own, albeit from Eastern brethren with whom they are in union. What of infant Chrismation and reception of the Eucharist? The disconnect befuddles me. A married clergy among Eastern Catholics should not be a problem anymore. Openly gay priests, pedophiles...yes, but a chaste married clergy? Yikes!

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Utroque] #381319 06/09/12 10:47 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
...the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the validity of the norm of a binding obligation of celibacy for priests of Eastern Catholic Churches who exercise the ministry outside the canonical territory.


I find it quite ironic that the Vatican seems to resent it when the Patriarchate of Moscow uses this terminology when faced with the presence of Latin missionaries on what they consider their "canonical territory", yet they quickly convoke it when faced with a tradition alien to their own, albeit from Eastern brethren with whom they are in union.


Now there's a can of worms.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DMD] #381385 06/12/12 02:37 AM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
L
likethethief Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by DMD

The North American Theological Consultation is going to take up this matter at its fall convocation as both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic representatives thereto expressed their strong concerns over these conflicting developments at the recently concluded session this month.


Excellent! Where did you get that information?

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381467 06/13/12 03:43 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 13
P
Peter G. Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 13
Notwithstanding the great sacrifice made by married priests, Catholic and Orthodox, I cannot help but wonder how celibate (specifically Roman Catholic) priests feel when their parishioners and even close friends advocate for a married (Catholic) priesthood. Are we inadvertently undercutting them and overlooking, under appreciating, the sacrifice that these men make for us? I do not wish to disparage the good intentions and reasons of those advocating for a married Catholic priesthood, but what are the effects of our words on those who have left the great good of wife and children behind for us? Should we not be cognizant and considerate of the human dimensions of these good celibate men?

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Peter G.] #381471 06/13/12 05:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Peter G.
I cannot help but wonder how celibate (specifically Roman Catholic) priests feel when their parishioners and even close friends advocate for a married (Catholic) priesthood.


Why would Roman Catholic priests concern themselves with how Eastern Catholics feel about a married Eastern Catholic presbyterate?

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381475 06/13/12 12:48 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
B
ByzKat Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
I think it's safe to assume that the parishioners in the question are not Eastern Catholics, but Roman Catholics.

Certainly the discussion of a married priesthood for Eastern Catholics cannot be completely separated from the idea of changing the Roman discipline of celibacy for Roman priests - not only do progressive Romans cite the Eastern example, but we Eastern Catholics often seem to propose that our discipline is so superior that it will or should be adopted by Roman Catholics.

Question: we claim to support monasticism, but the discourse about celibacy often makes it seem a much poorer option, imposed by force, rather than "the angelic life." We have never had a tradition that all celibates live in community, for that matter!

So I think it is reasonable to look at it occasionally from the point of view of a Roman priest, or a (celibate, non monastic) Eastern Catholic priest: DO we affirm that giving up a wife and children for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is a sacrifice made for God and for the good of all? Is it reasonable and possible for an adult (with support and prayer) to give up SEX for the sake of Gospel witness?

I doubt we will see a flourishing of monastic life until we can also answer yes to the above questions. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't ordain worthy married men, but we need to avoid undercutting those who give up even more to follow Christ.

And we should absolutely not undercut another church's disciplines if we expect ours to be respected.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381478 06/13/12 01:21 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
B
ByzKat Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
P.S. I am not saying that having married priests undercuts other church's disciplines - but the way we present ours sometimes seems calculated to have that effect. We want our disciplines to be held in honor; do we extend that practice to other churches? The Christian East once claimed the right to excommunicate Rome for fasting on Saturdays; would we do that today?

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: ByzKat] #381480 06/13/12 01:31 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by ByzKat
The Christian East once claimed the right to excommunicate Rome for fasting on Saturdays; would we do that today?


Can you provide a link? (I don't want to get into a conversation about it on this thread, but I'd like to read up on it on my own.)

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Peter J] #381484 06/13/12 02:11 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 556
Economos Roman V. Russo Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 556
This point about 'canonical territory' is very well taken. The 'canonical territory' of the local Roman Church sui iuris extends to intergalactic space! The 'canonical territory' of my own Melkite Church is 'defined' as coterminous with the Ottoman Empire and Egypt! Have they not noticed in Rome that there is no longer an Ottoman Empire? Holy Writ deals with this problem most adequately: Infinitus est autem numerus stultorum.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Economos Roman V. Russo] #381485 06/13/12 02:25 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by Ot'ets Nastoiatel'
This point about 'canonical territory' is very well taken. The 'canonical territory' of the local Roman Church sui iuris extends to intergalactic space! The 'canonical territory' of my own Melkite Church is 'defined' as coterminous with the Ottoman Empire and Egypt! Have they not noticed in Rome that there is no longer an Ottoman Empire? Holy Writ deals with this problem most adequately: Infinitus est autem numerus stultorum.


That is hysterical!

Seriously, unless that issue is resolved - i.e. 'universality' - we will be unable to come to any resolution of the Great Schism.

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3