|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 13, 2017 15:05:41 GMT -5
So this priest is married but I was reading that in 1929 Rome forbid the Eastern Rite priests to marry. Did they do away with that prohibition? The 1929 law only pertained to Eastern clerics in in America, Canada, and Australia. This was a disciplinary law, not doctrinal, and its intention was to protect Catholics in those countries from scandal. Today, the eastern rites have changed their law, and allow this practice. It is an arguable point as to whether this is possible without a Pope, but in their favor, the reason for the law is no longer present. It seems to me that it is clear that the remaining Roman rite Catholics in our day are no longer scandalized by married eastern clergy. With all of the other issues facing Catholics, this seems like small matter these days.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 13, 2017 15:08:59 GMT -5
So I've been watching some YouTube videos and Eastern rite is way more congregation interactive than the TLM. This is awesome because for someone self diagnosed with ADD it will be a lot easier to stay on track. The only time my mind didn't totally wonder during the TLM was when I was playing the organ and then all my mind was on was the music. I thought there was something totally lacking in me spiritually because of that. And no one is going to ask me to play the organ anymore!! Yeay! I can relax and get into the Liturgy!! And I can go Sat nite and hike with my husband on sunday morninn--he will be so glad! So it's better for me my marriage too. Questions---Veil? What's Communion like? Sign of the cross? At the eastern rite parish I go to half of the woman wear either hats or veils, the other woman do not.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 13, 2017 20:45:39 GMT -5
So I've been watching some YouTube videos and Eastern rite is way more congregation interactive than the TLM. This is awesome because for someone self diagnosed with ADD it will be a lot easier to stay on track. The only time my mind didn't totally wonder during the TLM was when I was playing the organ and then all my mind was on was the music. I thought there was something totally lacking in me spiritually because of that. And no one is going to ask me to play the organ anymore!! Yeay! I can relax and get into the Liturgy!! And I can go Sat nite and hike with my husband on sunday morninn--he will be so glad! So it's better for me my marriage too. Questions---Veil? What's Communion like? Sign of the cross? Wear a hat until you get the lay of the land. If you see someone wearing a veil, it's a good indication that they are Roman rite and will likely be conservative. Don't sweat not knowing anything or doing things wrong like the Sign of the Cross, no one is going to bother you.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 13, 2017 20:53:28 GMT -5
So this priest is married but I was reading that in 1929 Rome forbid the Eastern Rite priests to marry. Did they do away with that prohibition? He probebally was married in Europe and then came here? My Ukrainian Priest is Married. I have met a few married Eastern rite priests, I have to say, they are so much more patient with the children. My children are pretty good but even things have happened to me at the TLM that have made me cry or on the verge of tears due to personalities and the stress of having to have everything perfect at all times. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the heroic sacrifices of some traditional priests, like sleeping in their cars to bring the sacraments to people. However, it is very hard to undo scandal or unscare a child once a priest or religious has made such an impression on a child.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 13, 2017 23:18:42 GMT -5
Pacelli: It would seem that the Ukrainian Hierarchy (for at least 80 years prior to VII) was slowly implementing mandatory celibacy of its priests even in Ukraine (and this was supported by representatives of the Holy See in Ukraine). IMO - and this can be verified by historical facts - if not for Communist oppression (and the subsequent obliteration of the Greek Catholic Church in Eastern Europe) and the 2nd Vatican Council we would have a celibate clergy in the Ukrainian, Rusyn/Slovak/Magyar Catholic Churches today. My relatives confirmed this was already the situation in Western Ukraine prior to WW2. Even major Ukrainian eparchies (i.e. Stanyslaviv and Peremyshl) imposed mandatory clerical celibacy for aspirants to the holy priesthood in 1921 and 1930, respectively (I can look up references if you want). Stanyslaviv being the eparchy of the Martyr-Bishop Khomyshyn , a most saintly cleric. The Ukrainian hierarchy was only divided on how to implement mandatory celibacy. The holy Martyr-Bishop Hrihory Khomyshyn imposed it immediately in his eparchy while Metropolitan Sheptitskyj was for a gradual imposition. Here is an interesting extract of a letter from Metropolitan Sheptitskyj to Pope Pius XI in 1929: Above quote from: Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3 pp. 102-103. [Emphasis in above quote is mine] I believe that Metropolitan Sheptitskyj in his letter to Pope Pius XI (quoted above) was echoing the words of the same Pontiff in his 1935 encyclical AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII :URL: w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19351220_ad-catholicisacerdotii.htmlCOMMENTS: (i) Certainly, all the of the disciplines of the Church are infallibly safe (married clergy) but that does not stop the Church from wanting her children in adopting disciplines which correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls. That was indeed the true intention of the pre-VII Ukrainian Hierarchy in its desire to institute clerical celibacy. So its not a matter of simply saying, they did it before (a certain discipline) and they can do it again. (ii) It would seem that both Bp. Khomyshyn and Met. Sheptitskyj decreed (or could decree) mandatory celibacy. Although it was strongly encouraged by representatives of the Holy See as well. Liturgical matters are a different story and I will provide references in the Teplota thread. (iii) The post-Underground hierarchy is promoting/re-introducing a married clergy (although I grant you that the diaspora post-V2 bishops strongly promoted it as well). Certainly their motives are very suspicious (i.e. nor are they in harmony with the wishes of true Popes and the last "Traditional" Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church. my 2 cents worth...... [ Disclaimer before anyone asks : I do not say that married priest are wicked or effect the validity of the sacraments etc. , but yes I do strongly prefer a celibate clergy for the reasons espoused above, and hope for its restoration after we get a true Pope again]
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 13, 2017 23:41:20 GMT -5
So I've been watching some YouTube videos and Eastern rite is way more congregation interactive than the TLM. This is awesome because for someone self diagnosed with ADD it will be a lot easier to stay on track. The only time my mind didn't totally wonder during the TLM was when I was playing the organ and then all my mind was on was the music. I thought there was something totally lacking in me spiritually because of that. And no one is going to ask me to play the organ anymore!! Yeay! I can relax and get into the Liturgy!! And I can go Sat nite and hike with my husband on sunday morninn--he will be so glad! So it's better for me my marriage too. Questions---Veil? What's Communion like? Sign of the cross? Wear a hat until you get the lay of the land. If you see someone wearing a veil, it's a good indication that they are Roman rite and will likely be conservative. Don't sweat not knowing anything or doing things wrong like the Sign of the Cross, no one is going to bother you. Dont mean to be a know it all...but wearing a veil is not a problem...very few ladies where hats. Ive been at this a little longer. And there is no need to hide your Latin rite origin. As long as youre not there trying to change things
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 13, 2017 23:45:27 GMT -5
Pacelli: It would seem that the Ukrainian Hierarchy (for at least 80 years prior to VII) was slowly implementing mandatory celibacy of its priests even in Ukraine (and this was supported by representatives of the Holy See in Ukraine). IMO - and this can be verified by historical facts - if not for Communist oppression (and the subsequent obliteration of the Greek Catholic Church in Eastern Europe) and the 2nd Vatican Council we would have a celibate clergy in the Ukrainian, Rusyn/Slovak/Magyar Catholic Churches today. My relatives confirmed this was already the situation in Western Ukraine prior to WW2. Even major Ukrainian eparchies (i.e. Stanyslaviv and Peremyshl) imposed mandatory clerical celibacy for aspirants to the holy priesthood in 1921 and 1930, respectively (I can look up references if you want). Stanyslaviv being the eparchy of the Martyr-Bishop Khomyshyn , a most saintly cleric. The Ukrainian hierarchy was only divided on how to implement mandatory celibacy. The holy Martyr-Bishop Hrihory Khomyshyn imposed it immediately in his eparchy while Metropolitan Sheptitskyj was for a gradual imposition. Here is an interesting extract of a letter from Metropolitan Sheptitskyj to Pope Pius XI in 1929: Above quote from: Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3 pp. 102-103. [Emphasis in above quote is mine] I believe that Metropolitan Sheptitskyj in his letter to Pope Pius XI (quoted above) was echoing the words of the same Pontiff in his 1935 encyclical AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII :URL: w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19351220_ad-catholicisacerdotii.htmlCOMMENTS: (i) Certainly, all the of the disciplines of the Church are infallibly safe (married clergy) but that does not stop the Church from wanting her children in adopting disciplines which correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls. That was indeed the true intention of the pre-VII Ukrainian Hierarchy in its desire to institute clerical celibacy. So its not a matter of simply saying, they did it before (a certain discipline) and they can do it again. (ii) It would seem that both Bp. Khomyshyn and Met. Sheptitskyj decreed (or could decree) mandatory celibacy. Although it was strongly encouraged by representatives of the Holy See as well. Liturgical matters are a different story and I will provide references in the Teplota thread. (iii) The post-Underground hierarchy is promoting/re-introducing a married clergy (although I grant you that the diaspora post-V2 bishops strongly promoted it as well). Certainly their motives are very suspicious (i.e. nor are they in harmony with the wishes of true Popes and the last "Traditional" Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church. my 2 cents worth...... [ Disclaimer before anyone asks : I do not say that married priest are wicked or effect the validity of the sacraments etc. , but yes I do strongly prefer a celibate clergy for the reasons espoused above, and hope for its restoration after we get a true Pope again] well at the very least its highly unlikly the married priest is queer. (No Im not saying celibacy leads to homosodomy)
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 14, 2017 16:29:10 GMT -5
Wear a hat until you get the lay of the land. If you see someone wearing a veil, it's a good indication that they are Roman rite and will likely be conservative. Don't sweat not knowing anything or doing things wrong like the Sign of the Cross, no one is going to bother you. Dont mean to be a know it all...but wearing a veil is not a problem...very few ladies where hats. Ive been at this a little longer. And there is no need to hide your Latin rite origin. As long as youre not there trying to change things I didn't mean to sound like it was a problem to wear a veil. Honestly, no one will care, but a hat is always my way of not standing out in an unknown situation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 14, 2017 16:52:54 GMT -5
Pacelli: It would seem that the Ukrainian Hierarchy (for at least 80 years prior to VII) was slowly implementing mandatory celibacy of its priests even in Ukraine (and this was supported by representatives of the Holy See in Ukraine). IMO - and this can be verified by historical facts - if not for Communist oppression (and the subsequent obliteration of the Greek Catholic Church in Eastern Europe) and the 2nd Vatican Council we would have a celibate clergy in the Ukrainian, Rusyn/Slovak/Magyar Catholic Churches today. My relatives confirmed this was already the situation in Western Ukraine prior to WW2. Even major Ukrainian eparchies (i.e. Stanyslaviv and Peremyshl) imposed mandatory clerical celibacy for aspirants to the holy priesthood in 1921 and 1930, respectively (I can look up references if you want). Stanyslaviv being the eparchy of the Martyr-Bishop Khomyshyn , a most saintly cleric. The Ukrainian hierarchy was only divided on how to implement mandatory celibacy. The holy Martyr-Bishop Hrihory Khomyshyn imposed it immediately in his eparchy while Metropolitan Sheptitskyj was for a gradual imposition. Here is an interesting extract of a letter from Metropolitan Sheptitskyj to Pope Pius XI in 1929: Above quote from: Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3 pp. 102-103. [Emphasis in above quote is mine] I believe that Metropolitan Sheptitskyj in his letter to Pope Pius XI (quoted above) was echoing the words of the same Pontiff in his 1935 encyclical AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII :URL: w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19351220_ad-catholicisacerdotii.htmlCOMMENTS: (i) Certainly, all the of the disciplines of the Church are infallibly safe (married clergy) but that does not stop the Church from wanting her children in adopting disciplines which correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls. That was indeed the true intention of the pre-VII Ukrainian Hierarchy in its desire to institute clerical celibacy. So its not a matter of simply saying, they did it before (a certain discipline) and they can do it again. (ii) It would seem that both Bp. Khomyshyn and Met. Sheptitskyj decreed (or could decree) mandatory celibacy. Although it was strongly encouraged by representatives of the Holy See as well. Liturgical matters are a different story and I will provide references in the Teplota thread. (iii) The post-Underground hierarchy is promoting/re-introducing a married clergy (although I grant you that the diaspora post-V2 bishops strongly promoted it as well). Certainly their motives are very suspicious (i.e. nor are they in harmony with the wishes of true Popes and the last "Traditional" Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church. my 2 cents worth...... [ Disclaimer before anyone asks : I do not say that married priest are wicked or effect the validity of the sacraments etc. , but yes I do strongly prefer a celibate clergy for the reasons espoused above, and hope for its restoration after we get a true Pope again] As far as I can see the purpose of the law is no longer present in the affected countries. That was my point. The realitvely few Catholics that are left are not concerned about eastern rite married clergy, as far as I can see. All of the Roman Rite lay Catholics I have talked to about this don't think it is a big deal, and are most certainly not scandalized by it. The 1929 law did not affect the homelands of the eastern rites, only the specific countries I mentioned. If you want to discuss clerical celibacy in general in the eastern rites, that is another matter. As far as I see it, there are arguments for and against the practice. I have no strong opinions on it for the small eastern rites, which prior to Vatican II, all of them combined made up a very small portion of the Church, far less than 10%. The Roman Rite was for most the universal Church, the part of the Church found throughout the world and actively converting whole nations and countless individuals.. I hope that a Pope does not change the law in the Roman Rite as it as worked so well, but in the eastern rites, the people are used to married clergy, and it has worked for them, many of the voactions are from married men.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 14, 2017 17:31:40 GMT -5
I would also like to add the the 1929 law was set up to be renewed in 10 year spans, therefore, every ten years it expired and needed to be renewed. I know it was renewed under real Popes, but we who hold the sedevacantist position know that any renewal by the Conciliar claimants is not valid, especially since the purpose of the law is no longer needed. If anything, the law has harmed many Catholics who left the Church to join the so-called Orthodox over the married priesthood matter.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 14, 2017 17:54:52 GMT -5
One of my points (perhaps indirect), Pacelli, (i.e. wrt to Ukrainian Church in Ukraine) was that optional celibacy was out and compulsory celibacy was mandated or being slowly implemented for the virtuous reasons I gave above. Those who changed that policy or opposed that policy were the "Byzantine Modernists" that came from the diaspora schooled in the Spirit of Vatican II (for such reasons as being more like our "Orthodox" cousins, inter alia). Was this change in policy from the Church? In the future there would be no need for the "1929 rule" since almost allUkrainian priests would have been celibate by now (or certainly within the foreseeable future). I am not disputing that married clergy worked in the past.
Please I don't want to get into married/celibate clergy debate.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 14, 2017 18:08:06 GMT -5
One of my points (perhaps indirect), Pacelli, (i.e. wrt to Ukrainian Church in Ukraine) was that optional celibacy was out and compulsory celibacy was mandated or being slowly implemented for the virtuous reasons I gave above. Those who changed that policy or opposed that policy were the " Byzantine Modernists" that came from the diaspora schooled in the Spirit of Vatican II (for such reasons as being more like our "Orthodox" cousins, inter alia). Was this change in policy from the Church ? In the future there would be no need for the "1929 rule" since almost allUkrainian priests would have been celibate by now (or certainly within the foreseeable future). I am not disputing that married clergy worked in the past. Please I don't want to get into married/celibate clergy debate.Neither do I, that's why I am just looking at the law without speculating on what might be today if we had a Pope. Personally, I think the Popes would not have imposed celibate clergy on the east, as the practice was showing itself to be harmful (in the diaspora) I also don't think the eastern Catholics would have embraced clerical celibacy despite the hopes of some in those rites, the people of those rites did not want this, it was part of their custom, and to push the matter had a real risk of schism as it did in the diaspora. Hundreds of thousands of eastern Catholics left the Church over the 1929 law, and that affected only three countries. I highly doubt that the Popes would have pushed this on the eastern Catholic homelands. Popes traditionally gave concessions to the east, the only reason for the 1929 law restricting their clergy was that they were settling into predominant Latin rite territories, and there was a real danger of scandal, at least at that time.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 14, 2017 18:27:17 GMT -5
Pacelli said: The Pope wouldn't have to, because celibacy was already mandated to 2/3 of their territory in Europe (Przemysl, Stanyslaviv 1920s) and planned to be mandated in Lviv in the 1940s by the Ukrainian bishops themselves. It is explained in my post above. I'll dig out the reference if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 14, 2017 19:06:14 GMT -5
Pacelli said: The Pope wouldn't have to, because celibacy was already mandated to 2/3 of their territory in Europe (Przemysl, Stanyslaviv 1920s) and planned to be mandated in Lviv in the 1940s by the Ukrainian bishops themselves. It is explained in my post above. I'll dig out the reference if you want. I still don't think they would have done it. People don't like change in long standing customs. It almost always causes serious problems, and it did cause such problems in the diaspora, as I mentioned with hundreds of thousands leaving the Church into schism. The fact that they did not enact that policy speaks volumes. IMO, it would have been a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 14, 2017 19:26:30 GMT -5
The popes did not enact mandatory celibacy for the Ukrainian Church (in Ukraine) because the bishops had the power to enact it themselves - then Communism and then VII came...... As I said, liturgical matters were a different story. The schism that occurred within the North American diaspora was more complicated than a simple aversion towards the Vatican's "only celibate" policy. Yes, the schismatics and Orthodox agitators used it as a false pretence of a distant and uncaring Rome, but it was a combination of the treatment of all Eastern Slavic Catholics (Roman and Byzantine) by some in the American hierarchy and the activity of those spurned by ArchBp. Ireland using a type of religious nationalism, supported morally and financially by the Russian "Orthodox" church. i.e. see the schismatic priest Alexis Toth formally from Presov, I think.
|
|