FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: It's good to be a Melkite
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(02-15-2012, 03:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]False, again. It's a well known fact that many eastern catholics have erroneous views on the eclessiology of the Church, the nature of the Popes powers and ecumenical councils.

Lol, wasn't it you who wanted explicit proof that married priests aren't required to be continent?  So why don't show me your proof that it's a 'well known fact' that many of us hold such erronneous views?
(02-15-2012, 04:53 PM)Josie Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 10:19 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I do have a sense of humour.

Don't judge me too harshly.

It's more the internet than you.  For whatever reason, sarcasm is a bitch in written form.
Many a misunderstanding may be prevented by using purple font for sarcastic commentary... e.g.
This sure is a brotherly, lighthearted discussion.    :grin:

This is a wonderful idea but may cause confusion during Lent and Advent.  We might mix up our penitential and sarcastic seasons. :P
Aye, Jayne, surely ~ and while we're at it we can atone for offending our brothers and sisters.
(02-13-2012, 10:56 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 10:30 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]going by the Julian Calendar

Adherence to the Julian calendar is not something to be proud of but it's rather a symptom of sheer idiocy. The East refused to adopt the Gregorian calendar purely out of anti-Roman sentiments, the same way England and other Protestant countries did.

Vetus I commend you for fighting the good fight in this thread.

Respectfully Melkite, this is absolutely nothing to be proud of.  This confirms for the thousandth time that there is, within Eastern quarters, organized disobedience and schismatism under the cover of sui juris.

At the same time that Latin tradition has been virtually stamped out and made illegal in a de facto sense, the exact same traitors urged on an artificial 'de-latinization' to roll back changes with communities for several centuries.  Read the Bishop's letter: he is demanding that local communities suddenly follow a liturgically excavated tradition thanks to Bugnini's Protestant freemason crew.

There are legitimate liturgical and spiritual methods to be lively lived out in the Uniate bodies.  However, this has become an all-out assault on A) Latin customs and spirituality that, over the course of time and events, permeated Eastern boundaries B) Revealed truth, at least implicitly (e.g., I understand the organically developed spiritual uniqueness, but how in the world is it theologically acceptable to, by fiat, forbid Eastern Catholics from enjoying the fruits of Catholic devotions like Adoration?) C) Good natured piety (by constantly attacking Thomism, Latin, Latin rituals, etc. it is just becomes a climate of nastiness and clinging to empty traditions, essentially superstition.)

Consider this, step back and look at that avatar picture proclaiming ‘Damn, I’m eradicating freely and willfully practiced traditions centuries ago imported from Latin brothers.  AWESOME!’  

Vetus and the others are absolutely right; this is tragic and truly another opportunity of pain on the Body of Christ.
(02-15-2012, 05:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 03:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]False, again. It's a well known fact that many eastern catholics have erroneous views on the eclessiology of the Church, the nature of the Popes powers and ecumenical councils.

Lol, wasn't it you who wanted explicit proof that married priests aren't required to be continent?  So why don't show me your proof that it's a 'well known fact' that many of us hold such erronneous views?

I asked out of curiosity, not doubt, perhaps I should have made that clear.
(02-15-2012, 05:57 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 03:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]False, again. It's a well known fact that many eastern catholics have erroneous views on the eclessiology of the Church, the nature of the Popes powers and ecumenical councils.

Lol, wasn't it you who wanted explicit proof that married priests aren't required to be continent?  So why don't show me your proof that it's a 'well known fact' that many of us hold such erronneous views?

I asked out of curiosity, not doubt, perhaps I should have made that clear.

The Canon Law for the East does not say that continence is expected, aside from serving at the altar, which means what Melkite said about absitnance the night before Eucharistic Liturgies.  When it comes to Canon Law, the traditional interpretation is as important as the letter, and married Eastern priests with children have not gotten in trouble.
(02-15-2012, 06:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:57 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 03:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]False, again. It's a well known fact that many eastern catholics have erroneous views on the eclessiology of the Church, the nature of the Popes powers and ecumenical councils.

Lol, wasn't it you who wanted explicit proof that married priests aren't required to be continent?  So why don't show me your proof that it's a 'well known fact' that many of us hold such erronneous views?

I asked out of curiosity, not doubt, perhaps I should have made that clear.

The Canon Law for the East does not say that continence is expected, aside from serving at the altar, which means what Melkite said about absitnance the night before Eucharistic Liturgies.  When it comes to Canon Law, the traditional interpretation is as important as the letter, and married Eastern priests with children have not gotten in trouble.

As in priests have to be continent as regards mass?

And thanks for the info  :)
(02-15-2012, 06:38 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 06:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:57 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 03:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]False, again. It's a well known fact that many eastern catholics have erroneous views on the eclessiology of the Church, the nature of the Popes powers and ecumenical councils.

Lol, wasn't it you who wanted explicit proof that married priests aren't required to be continent?  So why don't show me your proof that it's a 'well known fact' that many of us hold such erronneous views?

I asked out of curiosity, not doubt, perhaps I should have made that clear.

The Canon Law for the East does not say that continence is expected, aside from serving at the altar, which means what Melkite said about absitnance the night before Eucharistic Liturgies.  When it comes to Canon Law, the traditional interpretation is as important as the letter, and married Eastern priests with children have not gotten in trouble.

As in priests have to be continent as regards mass?

And thanks for the info  :)

No problem.

Yeah, the overnight fast for priests with a wife would include abstinence, as with married lay people.  The way I heard it put was that both East and West, the primary concern was to separate the Eucharist from sexual activity, as a sacred thing.  Not that married sex is at all bad, but then neither is eating food, and there is a concern to fast from that before Mass.
(02-15-2012, 06:44 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 06:38 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 06:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:57 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 03:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]False, again. It's a well known fact that many eastern catholics have erroneous views on the eclessiology of the Church, the nature of the Popes powers and ecumenical councils.

Lol, wasn't it you who wanted explicit proof that married priests aren't required to be continent?  So why don't show me your proof that it's a 'well known fact' that many of us hold such erronneous views?

I asked out of curiosity, not doubt, perhaps I should have made that clear.

The Canon Law for the East does not say that continence is expected, aside from serving at the altar, which means what Melkite said about absitnance the night before Eucharistic Liturgies.  When it comes to Canon Law, the traditional interpretation is as important as the letter, and married Eastern priests with children have not gotten in trouble.

As in priests have to be continent as regards mass?

And thanks for the info  :)

No problem.

Yeah, the overnight fast for priests with a wife would include abstinence, as with married lay people.  The way I heard it put was that both East and West, the primary concern was to separate the Eucharist from sexual activity, as a sacred thing.  Not that married sex is at all bad, but then neither is eating food, and there is a concern to fast from that before Mass.

Perhaps this I what I got confused with then.

Thanks again  :)
(02-15-2012, 05:45 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: [ -> ]Respectfully Melkite, this is absolutely nothing to be proud of.  This confirms for the thousandth time that there is, within Eastern quarters, organized disobedience and schismatism under the cover of sui juris.

At the same time that Latin tradition has been virtually stamped out and made illegal in a de facto sense, the exact same traitors urged on an artificial 'de-latinization' to roll back changes with communities for several centuries.  Read the Bishop's letter: he is demanding that local communities suddenly follow a liturgically excavated tradition thanks to Bugnini's Protestant freemason crew.

There are legitimate liturgical and spiritual methods to be lively lived out in the Uniate bodies.  However, this has become an all-out assault on A) Latin customs and spirituality that, over the course of time and events, permeated Eastern boundaries B) Revealed truth, at least implicitly (e.g., I understand the organically developed spiritual uniqueness, but how in the world is it theologically acceptable to, by fiat, forbid Eastern Catholics from enjoying the fruits of Catholic devotions like Adoration?) C) Good natured piety (by constantly attacking Thomism, Latin, Latin rituals, etc. it is just becomes a climate of nastiness and clinging to empty traditions, essentially superstition.)

Consider this, step back and look at that avatar picture proclaiming ‘Damn, I’m eradicating freely and willfully practiced traditions centuries ago imported from Latin brothers.  AWESOME!’  

Vetus and the others are absolutely right; this is tragic and truly another opportunity of pain on the Body of Christ.

You're being completely rediculous.  Organized disobedience and schism because we're going back to our own practices?  Seriously, will you Latins ever get over yourselves?  Your **** don't smell like roses just cause it splats in Latin.

Whether individual Eastern Catholics have become accustomed to certain Latin practices is irrelevant.  You are being dishonest historically when you suggest that all the Easterners gladly adopted Latin practices, as if the Latins swept in to save the day, saving us barbarous Easterners from dreadfully inferior practices.  You *forced* them on us, you don't now get to complain that we are returning to our own traditions in our own parishes.  When we start forcing you to do things our way in your parishes, then we'll talk.

The fact is, no Eastern Catholic is forbidden from taking part in any Latin practice they want to.  They are just as free to practice them in a Latin parish if that is what they want.  There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON that we should also have to follow your practices in our parishes as well.  You are so concerned about Easterners that want to practice Latin traditions, yet you show no concern for Easterners who want to practice Byzantine traditions.  For those of us who would like to be truly Byzantine, where exactly are we supposed to go if our own parishes are to be reserved for the Latin wannabes?  The only reason a Latin Catholic could be troubled by a Latin practice being discontinued in an Eastern parish, when it is still practiced in the more numerous Latin parishes, is if your extraordinarily inflated egos suffer such an inferiority complex that it is impossible to see any goodness in your own traditions unless everyone else practices them as well.  Seriously, GET OVER YOURSELVES.  When have we ever, even once, tried to force our traditions on you in your own parishes.  You have 99.87% of the entire Church.  If you complain that you don't have the remaining 0.13% practicing according to your will, where exactly are people like me, who appreciate our Byzantine traditions, supposed to go?  If we cannot even have our own parishes, how can you possibly say you respect our traditions and hold no animosity against us, when your very actions and complaints say you shall never be happy until you have molded every last one of us into your image?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20