The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W., Ramon, PeaceBeToAll
5,982 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (theophan), 185 guests, and 55 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,720
Members5,982
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
The problem is that unless you are "in the know" ... you'd never know it happened. That was a deliberate choice and no amount of explaining will make it or the mentality behind it okay.

When a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox christian (or even a member of that very Church such as myself) look at that official bulletin and read about what looks like, for all intents and purposes, more celibate priests filling the Ruthenian ranks, the actual facts are of no consequence. The damage is already done.

Whether you will admit it was done deliberately is up to you. I hope when anybody chronicles my life to date, they will feel that my wife and kids are worth a sentence or two.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by babochka
Rather than lament the past, let us look to the future. Change isn't going to happen immediately, for logistical reasons if nothing else, but it is happening.

Amen.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by jjp
What's to hide? More harm than good is done by keeping these things secret.

Long term, yes. Shorter term, I'm not so sure.

As a lifelong Roman Catholic (who may soon canonically be headed East), my own personal concern over the matter is that the faith of many Roman Catholics in the United States is weak as it is. Our "central ecclesial culture" (sense of who we are as Catholics) is equally so. And, finally, celibate priesthood is just as ingrained in the Western psyche as married priesthood is in the East.

So, when it comes to something like mandatory celibacy for priests (something that everyone recognizes to be a unique gift, but also challenging vocation to live out), there is an overemphasis on the "critical importance" thereof in the West. And the problem is that, given the nature of things at present (in the West), as delineated above, remove that one particular "sure foundation" of people's faith with a sudden "We have married priests parade" by the East, and you're bound to send the universal ship that is the Church through a great deal of potentially harmful turbulence that could have otherwise been mitigated by "easing into" the reality of a married priesthood instead. (cf. 1 Cor. 6:7)

Does that make sense?

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Self-deleted.

Last edited by Talon; 07/05/14 03:08 AM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Quote
Does that make sense?

If the perceived health of the Roman Church has priority over the spiritual well-being Eastern Churches, then yes.

Which it obviously does in the Catholic communion. Damaging to ecumenism in the short and long term, which is exactly why panels and commissions are imploring both lungs of the Catholic Church to cut it out already.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by jjp
What's to hide? More harm than good is done by keeping these things secret.

Long term, yes. Shorter term, I'm not so sure.

As a lifelong Roman Catholic (who may soon canonically be headed East), my own personal concern over the matter is that the faith of many Roman Catholics in the United States is weak as it is. Our "central ecclesial culture" (sense of who we are as Catholics) is equally so. And, finally, celibate priesthood is just as ingrained in the Western psyche as married priesthood is in the East.

So, when it comes to something like mandatory celibacy for priests (something that everyone recognizes to be a unique gift, but also challenging vocation to live out), there is an overemphasis on the "critical importance" thereof in the West. And the problem is that, given the nature of things at present (in the West), as delineated above, remove that one particular "sure foundation" of people's faith with a sudden "We have married priests parade" by the East, and you're bound to send the universal ship that is the Church through a great deal of potentially harmful turbulence that could have otherwise been mitigated by "easing into" the reality of a married priesthood instead. (cf. 1 Cor. 6:7)

Does that make sense?
It might make sense if the Latin Church didn't already have more married priests via Anglicans and others than the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Latin Church's problems can no longer dictate what we do or we will disappear. If you feel they should perhaps you shouldn't go East. My Church went through harmful turbulence because of the Latin Church that saw over half the people leave. The Latin Church has turbulence of its own to deal with because rather than deal with the diversity that is the Catholic Church the keep hiding behind "Our people might be scandalized." I got news for them, married priest won't scandalize the people. Will it make it harder to sell mandatory celibacy? Yes, but too bad.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by jjp
Quote
Does that make sense?

If the perceived health of the Roman Church has priority over the spiritual well-being Eastern Churches, then yes. Which it obviously does in the Catholic communion.

It's not a matter of "preferring" one over the other. It's a matter of the stronger of the brothers putting up with a little offense from the weaker for the good of all, per a couple of exhortations from the apostle Paul.

Quote
Damaging to ecumenism in the short and long term, which is exactly why panels and commissions are imploring both lungs of the Catholic Church to cut it out already.

To be clear, I do view it as a problem that the East has not been able to practice its patrimony in totality for the past many decades. That injunction should never have happened. But concrete history being what it is...*shrug*...Contrary to impulse, sometimes it's better to ease into a solution, rather than execute it all at once.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by jjp
What's to hide? More harm than good is done by keeping these things secret.

Long term, yes. Shorter term, I'm not so sure.

As a lifelong Roman Catholic (who may soon canonically be headed East), my own personal concern over the matter is that the faith of many Roman Catholics in the United States is weak as it is. Our "central ecclesial culture" (sense of who we are as Catholics) is equally so. And, finally, celibate priesthood is just as ingrained in the Western psyche as married priesthood is in the East.

So, when it comes to something like mandatory celibacy for priests (something that everyone recognizes to be a unique gift, but also challenging vocation to live out), there is an overemphasis on the "critical importance" thereof in the West. And the problem is that, given the nature of things at present (in the West), as delineated above, remove that one particular "sure foundation" of people's faith with a sudden "We have married priests parade" by the East, and you're bound to send the universal ship that is the Church through a great deal of potentially harmful turbulence that could have otherwise been mitigated by "easing into" the reality of a married priesthood instead. (cf. 1 Cor. 6:7)

Does that make sense?
It might make sense if the Latin Church didn't already have more married priests via Anglicans and others than the Eastern Catholic Churches.

This may be true in terms of total numbers. But "per capita", married priests are still extremely rare in the Roman Church. (In the U.S. anyway.)

Quote
The Latin Church's problems can no longer dictate what we do or we will disappear.

Agreed on the whole that Roman Church issues are Roman Church issues and not something the East should have to worry about. With a small caveat that we are all members of the one same Body of Christ and, thus, occasionally, some issue might present itself that needs a little solidarity.

Quote
The Latin Church has turbulence of its own to deal with because rather than deal with the diversity that is the Catholic Church the keep hiding behind "Our people might be scandalized." I got news for them, married priest won't scandalize the people. Will it make it harder to sell mandatory celibacy? Yes, but too bad.

A saying from Dr. Phil comes to mind here... smile

"You can either be right, or you can get what you want."

If your contention is that Rome was wrong to impose the injunction in the first place and must now reverse course en toto and do so "yesterday"...Technically speaking, you're in the right. However, if it's the good of the Body of Christ that you desire, Fr. Deacon, with respect, I would suggest that easing into this transition (as the Church is now doing) is a more efficacious way to do things.

I may be wrong...But that's how I perceive the "big picture" at this point.

Peace be with you.


Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Talon
It's not a matter of "preferring" one over the other. It's a matter of the stronger of the brothers putting up with a little offense from the weaker for the good of all, per a couple of exhortations from the apostle Paul.

Your rationalization contradicts the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation's stated recommendation.

You are yet to explain how this benefits the good of "all." Your examples to date only refer to North American Roman Catholicism. In what way do their governing interests represent "all"?

Quote
To be clear, I do view it as a problem that the East has not been able to practice its patrimony in totality for the past many decades. That injunction should never have happened. But concrete history being what it is...*shrug*...Contrary to impulse, sometimes it's better to ease into a solution, rather than execute it all at once.

The The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is impulsive? How many more decades of "easing" do you suggest at the expense of the Byzantine Catholic faithful?

I am more and more convinced every day that the Eastern Catholic experiment is not only a failure, but an unredeemable obstacle to Christian unity. This conversation, no matter how it ends, is but one of many sad examples.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by jjp
Originally Posted by Talon
It's not a matter of "preferring" one over the other. It's a matter of the stronger of the brothers putting up with a little offense from the weaker for the good of all, per a couple of exhortations from the apostle Paul.

Your rationalization contradicts the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation's stated recommendation.

How?

Quote
You are yet to explain how this benefits the good of "all." Your examples to date only refer to North American Roman Catholicism. In what way do their governing interests represent "all"?

For the sake of "the greater good" may have been a better way to put it.

Originally Posted by Talon
To be clear, I do view it as a problem that the East has not been able to practice its patrimony in totality for the past many decades. That injunction should never have happened. But concrete history being what it is...*shrug*...Contrary to impulse, sometimes it's better to ease into a solution, rather than execute it all at once.

Originally Posted by jjp
The The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is impulsive?

Not as far as I know, no. The impulsivity to which I allude was a reference to those who would suggest that a wrong has been committed and it's time to right it in full and IMMEDIATELY. Sometimes said course of action is appropriate and other times it only adds to the harm to reverse course instantly.

Quote
How many more decades of "easing" do you suggest at the expense of the Byzantine Catholic faithful?

As few as possible. Note that this process has already been underway for a good 15 years now. (Which, admittedly, for the Church, is the blink of an eye. But...) If I thought the Church could "get away with" demolishing all vestiges of the former ban today, I'd be all for it...

Quote
I am more and more convinced every day that the Eastern Catholic experiment is not only a failure, but an unredeemable obstacle to Christian unity. This conversation, no matter how it ends, is but one of many sad examples.

If you're an Orthodox Christian who does not recognize the historical primacy of the See of Rome, then that perspective sort of goes without saying, yes. If you're an Orthodox Christian who does recognize the primacy of the See of Rome, things should look quite different at this point.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by jjp
Your rationalization contradicts the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation's stated recommendation.

How?

I figured you read the link that this thread is based on.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-099.cfm


Quote
Quote
You are yet to explain how this benefits the good of "all." Your examples to date only refer to North American Roman Catholicism. In what way do their governing interests represent "all"?

For the sake of "the greater good" may have been a better way to put it.

That is exactly what the NAOCTC appeals to. What good do you have in mind greater than the unity of Christ's Church?


Quote
Originally Posted by jjp
The The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is impulsive?

Not as far as I know, no. The impulsivity to which I allude was a reference to those who would suggest that a wrong has been committed and it's time to right it in full and IMMEDIATELY. Sometimes said course of action is appropriate and other times it only adds to the harm to reverse course instantly.

How could undoing the harm done to Byzantine Catholics add to the harm it has suffered?

Quote
Quote
How many more decades of "easing" do you suggest at the expense of the Byzantine Catholic faithful?

As few as possible. Note that this process has already been underway for a good 15 years now. (Which, admittedly, for the Church, is the blink of an eye. But...) If I thought the Church could "get away with" demolishing all vestiges of the former ban today, I'd be all for it...

By "Church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, as you've yet to demonstrate how the Universal Church would be harmed by an action that theologians and ecumenists agree would heal a very significant rift.

Quote
Quote
I am more and more convinced every day that the Eastern Catholic experiment is not only a failure, but an unredeemable obstacle to Christian unity. This conversation, no matter how it ends, is but one of many sad examples.

If you're an Orthodox Christian who does not recognize the historical primacy of the See of Rome, then that perspective sort of goes without saying, yes. If you're an Orthodox Christian who does recognize the primacy of the See of Rome, things should look quite different at this point.

I'm a Ruthenian Catholic that is in search of a church that has a healthy understanding of itself without the need to apologize for its patrimony. If I lived close enough to a Melkite church I would be Melkite. As it is, it will likely be the Orthodox Church.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by jjp
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by jjp
Your rationalization contradicts the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation's stated recommendation.

How?

I figured you read the link that this thread is based on.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-099.cfm

I did. Which is why I'm confused as to what you're getting at. I've said (more than once, I believe) in this thread that it is a good idea for the East to return completely to its former practices in the U.S. (and everywhere else, for that matter).

My only beef is with the idea that it absolutely has to happen "yesterday." I didn't see anywhere in the statement where the commission urged an "immediate" overturning of the ban. It appears that all they said was that it should happen.

Originally Posted by jjp
You are yet to explain how this benefits the good of "all." Your examples to date only refer to North American Roman Catholicism. In what way do their governing interests represent "all"?

Originally Posted by Talon
For the sake of "the greater good" may have been a better way to put it.

Originally Posted by jjp
That is exactly what the NAOCTC appeals to. What good do you have in mind greater than the unity of Christ's Church?

See above.

Originally Posted by Talon
The impulsivity to which I allude was a reference to those who would suggest that a wrong has been committed and it's time to right it in full and IMMEDIATELY. Sometimes said course of action is appropriate and other times it only adds to the harm to reverse course instantly.
Originally Posted by jjp
How could undoing the harm done to Byzantine Catholics add to the harm it has suffered?

Again, the problem does not lie in undoing the harm, it potentially lies in trying to undo it too quickly. (Think, for example, of the lack of wisdom present in trying to yank an object someone has been impaled with out of them when the object has a barbed hook on it. The object needs to come out, certainly. But removing it slowly and carefully, rather than swiftly, is the more prudential move.) And this, not necessarily to Byzantines as much as to their brother and sister Romans.

Originally Posted by jjp
I am more and more convinced every day that the Eastern Catholic experiment is not only a failure, but an unredeemable obstacle to Christian unity. This conversation, no matter how it ends, is but one of many sad examples.

Originally Posted by Talon
If you're an Orthodox Christian who does not recognize the historical primacy of the See of Rome, then that perspective sort of goes without saying, yes. If you're an Orthodox Christian who does recognize the primacy of the See of Rome, things should look quite different at this point.

Originally Posted by jjp
I'm a Ruthenian Catholic that is in search of a church that has a healthy understanding of itself without the need to apologize for its patrimony.

Which is precisely the direction we're headed in now. And also ironic as one of the things that struck me about my local Ruthenian (Catholic) Church was precisely its very solid sense of identity as Byzantine Catholics.

Quote
If I lived close enough to a Melkite church I would be Melkite. As it is, it will likely be the Orthodox Church.

Brother, are you falling into the trap of attempting to find the "perfect Church"? (Intended to be a rhetorical question, but respond if you'd like.)

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
"And this, not necessarily to Byzantines as much as to their brother and sister Romans."

I appreciate your honesty, but disagree that we need to or should subordinate our spiritual health and the cause of ecumenism for the sake of Roman sensitivities.

That you suggest it only reaffirms my belief that the Eastern Catholic experiment is a non-starter and detrimental to the healing of the rift in Christendom, per Christ's hope and prayer for us all. Uniates playing second fiddle will never yield anything positive, no matter how you try to justify it. History bears that out, either you ignore it or are ignorant of it.

I already outlined my need in a church, criterion met by multiple jurisdictions. Perfection has nothing to do with it.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Guys, guys . . .

You should all learn from the UGCC in this and other matters.

"It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission!"

There - now this thread can be closed grin

Alex

Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 19
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by jjp
I am more and more convinced every day that the Eastern Catholic experiment is not only a failure, but an unredeemable obstacle to Christian unity. This conversation, no matter how it ends, is but one of many sad examples.

Originally Posted by Talon
If you're an Orthodox Christian who does not recognize the historical primacy of the See of Rome, then that perspective sort of goes without saying, yes. If you're an Orthodox Christian who does recognize the primacy of the See of Rome, things should look quite different at this point.

Originally Posted by jjp
I'm a Ruthenian Catholic that is in search of a church that has a healthy understanding of itself without the need to apologize for its patrimony.

Which is precisely the direction we're headed in now. And also ironic as one of the things that struck me about my local Ruthenian (Catholic) Church was precisely its very solid sense of identity as Byzantine Catholics.

Quote
If I lived close enough to a Melkite church I would be Melkite. As it is, it will likely be the Orthodox Church.

Brother, are you falling into the trap of attempting to find the "perfect Church"? (Intended to be a rhetorical question, but respond if you'd like.)
I will probably be kicked off for saying this, but how can anyone say that the Ruthenian Church has a "very solid sense of identity as Byzantine Catholics" when it prohibits it's own liturgy and replaces it with one that is far more sensible to Roman Catholic sensibilities? You can go and read the threads here and in his book where Father Petras says the Ruthenian liturgy is not appropriate for Ruthenians in America and must be changed. I support the return of a married clergy. But without the real Byzantine liturgy there is little hope for the Ruthenian church. No sense staying where Byzantine life and liturgy isn't just not wanted but actually prohibited. The Greek Catholic people are the best in the world. But the uniate experiment is a colossal failure.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
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 - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5