i went to a tlm today...
#91
(01-08-2010, 01:48 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I can't see any harm in enforcing the practice of clerical celibacy to the whole Church. I believe it would be a good development, so to speak. We could see pre-Vatican II oriental churches 'favouring conformity with Western Christendom in this matter of celibacy. For example, the Armenian Church dependent upon the Patriarch of Cilicia even as far back as July, 1869, passed a resolution that celibacy should be required of all the higher orders of the clergy. Again the Synod of Scharfa in Syria, in 1888, decreed that "the celibate life which is already observed by the great majority of the priests of our Church should henceforth be common to all", although the deacons and priests who were already married were allowed to continue as before, and though a certain power of dispensation in cases of necessity was left with the patriarch. Similarly in 1898 a synod of the Catholic Copts at Alexandria decreed that henceforth all candidates for any of the higher orders must be celibate "according to the ancient discipline of the Church of Alexandria and the other Churches of God".' (CE)

These Eastern Catholic Churches were tiny fragments of the much larger Armenian Apostolic, Coptic, and Syrian Jacobite Churches, bullied by Western missionaries into discontinuing the ordination of married men to the priesthood.  Practices like this actually prevent the healing of schism, because the non-Catholics can tell the people that "the Latins want to take away your traditions and turn you into Latins".  Any attempt to impose celibacy on Eastern Catholic clergy results in schism, and prevents the healing of schism,.  The Russian Orthodox Church in North America ("the "Orthodox Church in America") is made up almost exclusively of the descendant of Catholics who went into schism over attempts to impose clerical celibacy on them.  It has been truly said that the notoriously anti-Eastern Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota is the founder of the Russian Orthodox Church in America.

(01-08-2010, 01:25 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 01:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: Aside from practical reasons, why would allowing married men to be priests be a bad thing?

Because it's a concession out of practical reasons, not the apostolic practice. The apostolic practice of an all-celibate clergy is lived in its fullness by the western clergy. That is why I said it could be a good "latinization".

The idea that clerical celibacy is an apostolic tradition is a crackpot theory proposed by alleged historian Fr. Christian Cochini, S. J. and promoted by his followers, Fr.  Roman Cholij, Stefan Heid, and the late Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler.  You will not find any reputable pre-Cochini historian repeating such nonsense.  A response to Cardinal Stickler's book, by and Eastern Catholic professor, can be found here:

http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm
Reply
#92
(01-10-2010, 01:59 PM)salome Wrote: As I stated in my edited post Gerard, you seem quite capable to research Eastern theology on the Mysteries/sacraments on your own.  Surely you can find something that will satisfy you. 

Peace be to you. 

I simply don't have time to do your research for you.  You made assertions.  You cannot back them up with any official teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches. 

Why did you bother to post in the first place? 

It's not my responsibility to prove your assertions true.  I've pointed out that the people here who claim to speak for Eastern Catholics can't possibly be accurate out of the sheer immorality of what is being proposed.  To support the idea that Eucharistic Adoration endorsed by Popes for a millennia  is a profanity is not a different understanding.  It's a tell-tale sign of a schism.

Do you even acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff over all the Churches in the whole world? 

Are you actually a Catholic?  Either an Eastern Catholic or a Latin rite attendee of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church in Communion and subject to the Roman Pontiff?  Or are you something else?
 

Reply
#93
I covered this back on reply #71, page 5 and reply #84 where I stated I actually "Like adoration."  That should clear it up for you as far as what kind of Catholic I am.

I guess these aren't good Catholics either....

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=197640

and these guys from that "pseudo-Catholic" forum www.byzcath.org

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads...s/281453/1

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads...s/325074/1

The latter has mention of several books that you can read for yourself on the subject.  There is a priest on that thread that responds to the questioner I believe. 

Hope all of this puts your restless mind at ease Gerard. 
Reply
#94
(01-10-2010, 02:59 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote: These Eastern Catholic Churches were tiny fragments of the much larger Armenian Apostolic, Coptic, and Syrian Jacobite Churches, bullied by Western missionaries into discontinuing the ordination of married men to the priesthood.

Once again, I can't see what's wrong in trying to impose clerical celibacy in the East, it has nothing to do with "bullying". I find your expression quite regrettable and reminds me of the type of hatred the schismatics show in their speech towards the Holy Roman Church. The western missionaries were trying to save souls and bring back the sheep into the fold. Back in the day, these people were actually trying to do something for those poor lost souls, quite unlike today.

But then again, as I've seen too many times, perhaps the easterners are different from the rest of the catholic world. If the rest of the Church has clerical celibacy, perhaps there's a good reason for it and perhaps it would be worth if eastern catholics should adopt it too. This is not an "attack" on their traditions and "sensibilities" and I can't see how it can be considered one.

(01-10-2010, 02:59 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote: Any attempt to impose celibacy on Eastern Catholic clergy results in schism, and prevents the healing of schism

This is nonsense. The healing of schism results in the softening of hearts on the part of schismatics with help of God, nothing else. If clerical celibacy stops them from embracing the true faith, then this only shows how disordered and false their faith really is. Apparently, nowhere else in the world does clerical celibacy prevent someone from embracing the true faith. Once again, the "East" is different.

(01-10-2010, 02:59 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote: The idea that clerical celibacy is an apostolic tradition is a crackpot theory proposed by alleged historian Fr. Christian Cochini, S. J. and promoted by his followers, Fr.  Roman Cholij, Stefan Heid, and the late Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler.

It's a "crackpot theory" because it doesn't agree with the eastern understanding. I know how the story goes.
Reply
#95
(01-10-2010, 04:39 PM)salome Wrote: I covered this back on reply #71, page 5 and reply #84 where I stated I actually "Like adoration."  That should clear it up for you as far as what kind of Catholic I am.

I guess these aren't good Catholics either....

I wasn't wondering what kind of Catholic you were.  I was trying to find out if you are Orthodox or Catholic or something else.  I still don't know.

Quote: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=197640

Lots of ignorant people on that site.  But none of them support Melkite's neo-pagan sex magic association with the Holy Eucharist. 

and these guys from that "pseudo-Catholic" forum www.byzcath.org

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads...s/281453/1

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads...s/325074/1

The latter has mention of several books that you can read for yourself on the subject.  There is a priest on that thread that responds to the questioner I believe. 

Hope all of this puts your restless mind at ease Gerard. 
[/quote]

Again, aside from a few smarmy comments by ignorant people who don't seem to understand the Latin custom.  None of them are calling Eucharistic Adoration a "profanity." 

Reply
#96
(01-10-2010, 04:39 PM)salome Wrote: "I was attending Orthodox Liturgies but came to realize that what was contained within the Orthodox Church, i.e. liturgy, faith, doctrine, was all mine by right of my baptism as a Catholic.  It was my ignorance of the church history and the universal Church as a whole that caused this confusion and crisis of faith for me.  By God's grace I hope to continue with what I have learned from the East and become not only a better Catholic but a better human being achieving ultimately theosis. "

I'm Roman Catholic. 
gerard Wrote:Again, aside from a few smarmy comments by ignorant people who don't seem to understand the Latin custom.

Precisely.  They don't understand the Latin custom of adoration because it is foreign to them.  This is what I have been unsuccessfully trying to get across.

gerard Wrote:None of them are calling Eucharistic Adoration a "profanity." 

And no one here called it profanity.  Melkite compared the Eucharist to human sexuality. 
Reply
#97
(01-10-2010, 04:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-10-2010, 02:59 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote: The idea that clerical celibacy is an apostolic tradition is a crackpot theory proposed by alleged historian Fr. Christian Cochini, S. J. and promoted by his followers, Fr.  Roman Cholij, Stefan Heid, and the late Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler.

It's a "crackpot theory" because it doesn't agree with the eastern understanding. I know how the story goes.

It's a crackpot theory bcause no serious historian takes it seriously, and Fr. Cochini pretty much invented it for his 1980 book, in which he ignores the evidence that does not support his contention that all clergy ought to be celibate.  As Dr.Dragani points out in his article, it is utterly impossible that the current Eastern discipline was invented at the Council in Trullo, because the same discipline has been observed from time immemorial in the lesser Eastern churches that were not represented at that council.
Reply
#98
(01-09-2010, 05:16 PM)Gerard Wrote: You've got it backwards.  It's not about the West forcing the East to understand the Blessed Sacrament in a different way.  It's about someone claiming to speak for the  East calling the Western Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament a "profanity." 

There is no "understanding" that entitles any Catholic of any kind to call a legitimate ritual concerning the Eucharist and the adoration of Him a "profanity." 

Blasphemy is blasphemy, there is no contextual understanding of blasphemy that excuses it. 

Go back and look at reply #70.  I wasn't calling it a profanity.  I was only trying to explain why it would NOT be good for Western eucharistic adoration to be imposed on the east.  At this point, I'm backing off of this thread.  You're kind of a hot head, and reading more into what Salome and I have been saying than is actually there.  You now know I was not calling Western exposition a profanity, so there is no way for you to accuse me of it any longer.  Not if you want to be honest about it, anyway.
Reply
#99
(01-11-2010, 10:37 AM)Melkite Wrote: Go back and look at reply #70.  I wasn't calling it a profanity.  I was only trying to explain why it would NOT be good for Western eucharistic adoration to be imposed on the east.  At this point, I'm backing off of this thread.  You're kind of a hot head, and reading more into what Salome and I have been saying than is actually there.  You now know I was not calling Western exposition a profanity, so there is no way for you to accuse me of it any longer.  Not if you want to be honest about it, anyway.

I apologize for coming on strong, but I am a little miffed about what I've read. 

You described it as "parading" the Lord around and compared it to presenting a couple in this midst of doing the wild thing for show. 

You also described it as "That which is most sacred must be veiled.  The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it." 

The logical conclusion to all of that is that the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is objectively a "profanity,"  since the whole thing is about the revealing of the sacred species.

What is a profanation of the sacred can't alter from rite to rite.  What is sacred is sacred, period.  So either the Eastern understanding is correct and the Latin rite is wrong or the Latin understanding is correct and the Eastern is wrong.



Reply
(01-11-2010, 11:51 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-11-2010, 10:37 AM)Melkite Wrote: Go back and look at reply #70.  I wasn't calling it a profanity.  I was only trying to explain why it would NOT be good for Western eucharistic adoration to be imposed on the east.  At this point, I'm backing off of this thread.  You're kind of a hot head, and reading more into what Salome and I have been saying than is actually there.  You now know I was not calling Western exposition a profanity, so there is no way for you to accuse me of it any longer.  Not if you want to be honest about it, anyway.

I apologize for coming on strong, but I am a little miffed about what I've read. 

You described it as "parading" the Lord around and compared it to presenting a couple in this midst of doing the wild thing for show. 

You also described it as "That which is most sacred must be veiled.  The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it." 

The logical conclusion to all of that is that the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is objectively a "profanity,"  since the whole thing is about the revealing of the sacred species.

What is a profanation of the sacred can't alter from rite to rite.  What is sacred is sacred, period.  So either the Eastern understanding is correct and the Latin rite is wrong or the Latin understanding is correct and the Eastern is wrong.

Look, I already said I did a bad job of explaining what I meant.  I was explaining it from a Byzantine perspective.  But I also clarified that I absolutely am not accusing the Latins of profaning the Eucharist in their form of adoration.  You're worshipping the one true God; that can never be profane.  Our understanding, though, is that the sacredness lies in the mystery.  Maybe it's not so much a necessity for us that our adoration be veiled as it just is helpful because it leaves a more profound recognition in our minds of just how sacred it is.  So, from our perspective, a Eucharistic procession, even if there is nothing objectively wrong with it, subjectively for us, can seem to be a profanation because you are obviously taking something of great sanctity and unveiling it.  But, to clarify, any Byzantine who would take that subjective perception and turn it into an objective accusation of profanity would be completely wrong in doing so.  Even in holding the mere thought.  Are we good now?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)