i went to a tlm today...
#71
(01-08-2010, 12:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: You conveniently left out the part where the Eastern Catholic clergy is basically infested with prelates encouraging the reading of "orthodox" books and praising their theology; or the fact that in their rhetoric one can easily find traces of anti-western and anti-roman suspicion and hatred coupled with an undisguised sympathy for the schismatics. Their disordered distaste for everything roman belies a profound hatred of the Church. You exhibited some of this disorder in this thread by maligning the pious practice of the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. I'm sure there are many more like you, including priests.

Maligning exposition of the Eucharist was not my intent, although I'll admit I did do a poor job on clarifying what I was trying to say.  Even before this issue came up, I did recognize the superficial disparity between the Eastern and Western views on Eucharistic adoration.  There is no profound disparity, I just don't know why yet.  If it were profound, then naturally, to take my view, I would have to say that Eucharistic adoration as practiced in the West was a bad thing.  And how could I do that?  How could worshipping the only True God ever be a bad thing?  I am in no way prepared to accuse the Latins of a blasphemy in this, and even if I were, that is not my desire, so I sincerely apologize that my lack of clarity implied that was my intent.  And yet, as sure as I am that Eucharistic adoration as practiced in the West is good and not bad, I am also sure that, at least in the East, our adoration of the Eucharist must be veiled to preserve its sanctity.  Human sexuality, as designed by God, not in its fallen state, is clearly a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic relationship between Christ and the Church.  I don't know how to reconcile the Eastern view with the Western, but I am certain the apparent disparity is only superficial.

(01-08-2010, 12:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 12:40 PM)Melkite Wrote: Are they fighting for an only celibate priesthood, or do they want to maintain the tradition of allowed married men to be ordained as well?

This would be a good "latinization", for instance.

Aside from practical reasons, why would allowing married men to be priests be a bad thing?  We know that celibacy is not an intrinsic aspect of holy orders, or it would not be possible for anyone married to be ordained to any order.
Reply
#72
Wow!  Vetus.  I don't really know where to start in response to your charges.  Hmmm....

I am only now able to attend the Divine Liturgy once a month because that is all that it is offered where I live, that is to say a non-Orthodox Divine Liturgy.  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. 

Eastern Rite Catholics are few and far between in America and there is a priest shortage in the Eastern Rite Catholic Church more than in the Latin Rite.  So when I am not at the Divine Liturgy the rest of the month I attend the Roman Rite, sometimes by an independent priest, sometimes by the SSPX.  The SSPX priest that I see knows fully my admiration, if you will, for the Eastern Rite and its theology and he is fine with it and has encouraged me to stay on this path. 

Again, I think a small porition of Traitional Catholic faithful, particularly the younger ones, have a false, naive, and very idealistic notion that the traditional movement, the SSPX in particular, is about Latinizing the entire planet, having ONLY the Latin Mass said in all the corners of the world, and ONLY the catechism of Trent taught in all the parishes.  That could not be further from the truth.  The traditional movement is concerned with restoring the proper Roman liturgy to its place in the Latin Church because then the faith will come back for the Latin Church. Faith and doctrine come from the liturgy. 

As for reading Orthodox theology, well, as I said, the 2 priests I consult for spiritual guidance are aware of what I am reading.  If either one of them were to tell me not to read a certain book by an Orthodox bishop or lay person, than I would gladly adhere to there instruction.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

pax
Reply
#73
(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".
Reply
#74
(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".

But there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that it was the apostolic practice.
Reply
#75
(01-08-2010, 01:06 PM)salome Wrote: Again, I think a small porition of Traitional Catholic faithful, particularly the younger ones, have a false, naive, and very idealistic notion that the traditional movement, the SSPX in particular, is about Latinizing the entire planet, having ONLY the Latin Mass said in all the corners of the world, and ONLY the catechism of Trent taught in all the parishes.

I've never claimed that and I've never heard anyone claim that. Your assumptions are absurd.

We know that the traditional movement is about the preservation of the faith, the fight against modernism and the restoration of the liturgy.

What we were discussing, on the other hand, was an all different subject that had to do with "latinizations" and the Eastern Church, both Catholic and "orthodox". It has been a long discussion that started in liturgy and derailed into theology.

(01-08-2010, 01:06 PM)salome Wrote: As for reading Orthodox theology, well, as I said, the 2 priests I consult for spiritual guidance are aware of what I am reading.  If either one of them were to tell me not to read a certain book by an Orthodox bishop or lay person, than I would gladly adhere to there instruction.

Well, this is the part where I mentioned you by name because of what you said. I continue to find it odd that your priests - assuming they're traditional - would allow you to do this, given the danger therein. We know that the Ecumenism that has swept the Church made the modern clergy sell the uniates to the schismatics in order to foster ecumenical relations. This sad reality has led many souls away and transformed a once brave Eastern Church that faced persecution from both Communists and "orthodox" into a schismatic "wannabe".

I assumed you were in danger because of what you said. I continue to be suspicious but only God knows your soul.
Reply
#76
(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".

I disagree.  There is nothing wrong with married priests outside of the Latin Rite.  I would never want to see them in the Latin Rite (except by dispensation such as to Anglicans coming over), but the Eastern Rites have legitimate traditions that should be respected.
Reply
#77
(01-08-2010, 01:39 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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".

I disagree.  There is nothing wrong with married priests outside of the Latin Rite.  I would never want to see them in the Latin Rite (except by dispensation such as to Anglicans coming over), but the Eastern Rites have legitimate traditions that should be respected.

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)
Reply
#78
" I continue to find it odd that your priests - assuming they're traditional..."

One of the priest is SSPX.  So, yes, one of them is "traditional" as you would define it. 

Pax vobiscum Vetus.  Pax!
Reply
#79
(01-08-2010, 02:57 PM)salome Wrote: One of the priest is SSPX.  So, yes, one of them is "traditional" as you would define it.

He has far more authority than I could ever have. As long as you seek his fatherly counsel, you should be safe.
Reply
#80
(01-07-2010, 11:25 PM)salome Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 11:07 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 10:46 PM)salome Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 11:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it.

Very well said Melkite. 

This exchange between Gerard and Melkite points to yet another difference in Eastern and Western theology.  The East understands marriage and human sexuality differently than the West.  The East is not as afraid of human sexuality as the West sometimes appears to be.  (I mean no offence).  For instance one of the traditional icons of Joachim and Anna on the conception of Mary shows the couple embracing in front of a bed tipped toward the viewer. 

You're not making sense.  The logical conclusion to your premise that the East is not afraid of sex and the West is, would dictate that if the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament were signified by the marital union/embrace of Christ and the Church, the East should be having Exposition all the time next to the paintings of St. Joachim and St. Anna "gettin' it on"  and the fearful West (Latin) would be the ones covering everything up. 

So there is an inconsistency being displayed here.  All the talk of veiling the intimate moments of marriage is to be respected, but look at our icons of saints humping!

Well I realized after I posted that I did not really explain myself thoroughly.  My apologies.   "Afraid" was not a good choice.   I was speaking more about your reaction to Melkite using human sexuality to explain the Eucharist.  Perhaps I inferred something in your response that was not there though.  Again, I meant no offence to you or anyone and I certainly did not mean to confuse you.  It is so much easier to site references (copy and paste) but my references would be Orthodox and that is against the forum rules.

Nevertheless there is a difference in the understanding of human sexuality, particularly in marriage, between the East and the West.  Anyone interested in learning further about those differences will have to Google an Eastern/Orthodox Catechism online.  I'll just leave it at that.

pax

I would dispute the premise that the understanding of sexuality is monolithically uniform in the Western part of the Church, the French and the Italians for one example have  much more public expressions for their enthusiasm and appreciation for the carnal aspects of life when compared with the Irish or Germans who are much more restrained in public about it.  (or at least used to be)

What I am most concerned about it not the appreciation of fertility in the west and the metaphors of human intimacy with Divine intimacy.  What I am most concerned about is the idea that the ritual of Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is an objective  form of profanation.  It is unacceptable for an Eastern Catholic to even hold the thought, it was condemned by Trent. 



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)