Pope OKs Eastern Catholics ordaining married priests in the West
#11
If this turns out to be true, Frank will finally be reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics.  And, if true, it's about time!  In my own warped and not-so-humble thinking, I've long thought that the Eastern Rite bishops in the West, especially here in the U.S., should have long ago grown some balls and just gone ahead and done what had already been promised that they could do.  And, somewhat to their shame, they didn't.  Oh well...
Reply
#12
It was my understanding that a married man who canonically transfers from the Latin Rite to an Eastern one cannot be ordained to the priesthood. Maybe I'm mis-remembering.  :)
Reply
#13
(11-17-2014, 11:36 AM)Drover Wrote: I have trouble coming to any other conclusion that the reason he is doing this is to ultimately push Married Priesthood into the Latin Rite. Because regardless of what OP thinks, the likely end result is a massive push by the laity + Bishops for that very thing. The Neo-Catholics will be celebrating this. Most of them probably want Married Priests.

I already see Catholics stating that "hopefully" the "ban" on a married priesthood will be lifted in the Latin Rite, in response to the Eastern Catholics. I'm amazed at just how many Catholics are apparently looking forward to married priesthood in the Latin Rite (then again, I don't know whether those  Catholics are lapsed, practicing, etc.).  Priestly celibacy is probably something that is no longer cherished by some clergy or Catholic laity for that matter. It looks like the secular world is doing an excellent job of evangelizing the Church. And not to mention the fact that strong male leadership seems to be waning in the Church (well maybe at least in the Latin Rite; I can't say so for Eastern Catholics).
Reply
#14
(11-17-2014, 06:08 PM)Silouan Wrote: It was my understanding that a married man who canonically transfers from the Latin Rite to an Eastern one cannot be ordained to the priesthood. Maybe I'm mis-remembering.  :)

I don't know if that was ever an on-the-books policy, but ordaining a married man previously required a dispensation from the Holy See. In the case of a Latin-gone-Eastern, that dispensation was never forthcoming. I don't see how that "rule" would still apply, since the Eastern bishop can decide on his own clergy and Rome need not be involved at all anymore.
Reply
#15
(11-17-2014, 11:05 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Also, what a slap in the face to those faithful priests who accepted the cross of celibacy out of love for the Church!

And what about those who were once allowed to be married & ordained in this country? I guess everybody gets to take turns getting their "slaps in the face" as well as accepting their crosses. Or better yet, sometimes it's good to re-evaluate the rules. As J Michael said, Francis is simply "reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics." The Latins have no business begrudging them.
Reply
#16
(11-19-2014, 12:02 PM)SCG Wrote:
(11-17-2014, 11:05 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Also, what a slap in the face to those faithful priests who accepted the cross of celibacy out of love for the Church!

And what about those who were once allowed to be married & ordained in this country? I guess everybody gets to take turns getting their "slaps in the face" as well as accepting their crosses. Or better yet, sometimes it's good to re-evaluate the rules. As J Michael said, Francis is simply "reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics." The Latins have no business begrudging them.

Yes!  Thank you!
Reply
#17
(11-19-2014, 12:02 PM)SCG Wrote:
(11-17-2014, 11:05 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Also, what a slap in the face to those faithful priests who accepted the cross of celibacy out of love for the Church!

And what about those who were once allowed to be married & ordained in this country? I guess everybody gets to take turns getting their "slaps in the face" as well as accepting their crosses. Or better yet, sometimes it's good to re-evaluate the rules. As J Michael said, Francis is simply "reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics." The Latins have no business begrudging them.

Well said! His Holiness is reaffirming - it should be pointed out - a promise that Rome had broken. When the Unia were established, Rome promised that the Eastern Catholics would be free to preserve their traditions. This is addressing a historical injustice and has nothing to do with the Latins, and so it cannot reasonably be interpreted as a "slap in the face." The real slap in the face was to those faithful Eastern Catholics who accepted the authority of the Roman Pontiff and his promises, then had their traditions taken away because some American bishops whined. If any Roman priests feel slapped in the face over this, then they should look to the example of those Eastern Catholics who took up their cross and remained faithful to Rome, despite Rome's broken promises, very often at the cost of unity within their families and their community. I am always surprised that Traditional Catholics - of all people - are so quick to ignore when Rome behaves and has behaved unjustly towards the Easterners and their traditions.
Reply
#18
(11-19-2014, 12:54 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 12:02 PM)SCG Wrote:
(11-17-2014, 11:05 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Also, what a slap in the face to those faithful priests who accepted the cross of celibacy out of love for the Church!

And what about those who were once allowed to be married & ordained in this country? I guess everybody gets to take turns getting their "slaps in the face" as well as accepting their crosses. Or better yet, sometimes it's good to re-evaluate the rules. As J Michael said, Francis is simply "reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics." The Latins have no business begrudging them.

Well said! His Holiness is reaffirming - it should be pointed out - a promise that Rome had broken. When the Unia were established, Rome promised that the Eastern Catholics would be free to preserve their traditions. This is addressing a historical injustice and has nothing to do with the Latins, and so it cannot reasonably be interpreted as a "slap in the face." The real slap in the face was to those faithful Eastern Catholics who accepted the authority of the Roman Pontiff and his promises, then had their traditions taken away because some American bishops whined. If any Roman priests feel slapped in the face over this, then they should look to the example of those Eastern Catholics who took up their cross and remained faithful to Rome, despite Rome's broken promises, very often at the cost of unity within their families and their community. I am always surprised that Traditional Catholics - of all people - are so quick to ignore when Rome behaves and has behaved unjustly towards the Easterners and their traditions.




I for one thank God for those American bishops. Their actions led to about 200,000 Eastern Catholics returning to the Orthodox Church.



[Image: 200px-John_Ireland_(archbishop_of_Saint_Paul).jpg]


Archbishop John Ireland. The father of Orthodoxy in America............
Reply
#19
(11-19-2014, 12:02 PM)SCG Wrote: As J Michael said, Francis is simply "reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics." The Latins have no business begrudging them.

As I've been saying, the church has the authority to make and change rules such as allowing or not allowing the married to be ordained in certain countries. That said, we shouldn't have banned it in Western countries. Pointless; caused a schism.

As for Archbishop Ireland and the Toth and Chornock schisms, I hope many traditionalists after Vatican II understand the rage that Eastern Catholic immigrants in America felt. But 1) see above about the church's authority to make and change rules and 2) their understandable resentment led them into the error of conflating the church with their culture, the short track from loving Byzantium to worshipping Byzantium, the same mistake the doctrinally Orthodox wannabes among convert Byzantine Catholics online make. "Not only are you not second-class; you ARE the true church, full stop!" An appeal to wounded pride. Reminds me of the reverse racism of Elijah Muhammad's old-school Black Muslims (Nation of Islam): just grievances turned into theologically illiterate garbage about noble blacks vs. white devils. That's what online Orthodox fulmination against us sounds like to me.
Reply
#20
(11-19-2014, 02:09 PM)youngfogey Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 12:02 PM)SCG Wrote: As J Michael said, Francis is simply "reaffirming a promise already previously made to the Eastern Catholics." The Latins have no business begrudging them.

As I've been saying, the church has the authority to make and change rules such as allowing or not allowing the married to be ordained in certain countries. That said, we shouldn't have banned it in Western countries. Pointless; caused a schism.

As for Archbishop Ireland and the Toth and Chornock schisms, I hope many traditionalists after Vatican II understand the rage that Eastern Catholic immigrants in America felt. But 1) see above about the church's authority to make and change rules and 2) their understandable resentment led them into the error of conflating the church with their culture, the short track from loving Byzantium to worshipping Byzantium, the same mistake the doctrinally Orthodox wannabes among convert Byzantine Catholics online make. "Not only are you not second-class; you ARE the true church, full stop!" An appeal to wounded pride. Reminds me of the reverse racism of Elijah Muhammad's old-school Black Muslims (Nation of Islam): just grievances turned into theologically illiterate garbage about noble blacks vs. white devils. That's what online Orthodox fulmination against us sounds like to me.


No one worships Byzantium. The Orthodox online are like the Nation of Islam? Your persistent use of hyperbole is ridiculous.

St. Alexis had his doubts about Roman Catholicism before the incident with Archbishop Ireland. It was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. He returned his people to a church that values tradition over tyrannical claims to authority, to paraphrase St. Cyprian.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)