|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 14, 2017 19:33:25 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. I, agree, schism is always more complex than the surface reason. The same could be said about the Polish schismatics. As I said though, I have the opinion that the homelands would not have implemented this policy, even if they had the right too. The "orthodox" would have had fuel put on their fire of hatred of Catholicism, and they would have used it against us, and used it against the eastern Catholics. That reason alone IMO, would have been a good reason to not change the law. It really comes down to opinion, you think they would have changed the law, I do not. There is no way to prove a hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 14, 2017 20:09:33 GMT -5
The Ukrainian bishops did indeed enact mandatory celibacy in Ukraine pre-WW2. I think we’re having a problem in defining mandatory celibacy. The bishops mandated this in the seminaries i.e. imposed it by only allowing and ordaining celibate candidates only. They did not nor did I ever infer that the Bishops would remove married priests from their parish or send them into some Siberian hinterland. But it stands to reason, as the married priests would age and die, they were replaced by younger priests chosen from a pool that increasingly became celibate.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 14, 2017 22:32:34 GMT -5
The Ukrainian bishops did indeed enact mandatory celibacy in Ukraine pre-WW2. I think we’re having a problem in defining mandatory celibacy. The bishops mandated this in the seminaries i.e. imposed it by only allowing and ordaining celibate candidates only. They did not nor did I ever infer that the Bishops would remove married priests from their parish or send them into some Siberian hinterland. But it stands to reason, as the married priests would age and die, they were replaced by younger priests chosen from a pool that increasingly became celibate. Thank you for clarifying. What you are saying is partially accurate, but your statement gives the impression that all Ukrainian bishops followed the practice of imposing on seminarians celibacy. It was only three bishops in western Ukrainian who adopted this, and that only for a while before it was abandoned. It was not being imposed by all Ukrainian Rite bishops during this period. By the time of World War II, all bishops were ordaining married men to the priesthood.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 15, 2017 5:19:44 GMT -5
Pacelli,
Yes my knowledge is limited but. I want to see your sources I.e scans. Those bishops accounted for a majority of the territory. For one thing all the Ukrainian bishops were busy with the war effort - effort meaning dealing with a devastating war. If they did ordain married men it was during a time of chaos where priests were being arrested and the same bishops were dealing with the Germans on one side and the encroaching Red army on the other. Why I tend to doubt your info is that Bp. Khomyshyn (for example) would never ordain married men, he was absolutely against it. He was not the type of man to change his mind and it contradicts the experience of people who were there (in Ukraine) during the war and before it.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 15, 2017 6:56:05 GMT -5
Isnt Priestly celebacy a disciplinary issue...established at the discretion of the Pope?
|
|
|
Post by kim on Oct 15, 2017 8:54:30 GMT -5
I went to Vespers and Divine Liturgy last night (my first time) at a Byzantine rite Catholic Church and it was awesome. All the colors of the icons, the incease,the constant singing and chanting. The male cantor, who was seated behind me was really nice to show me where we were in the book all the time cause I wanted to sing as much as I could and can sight sing without difficulty---I loved being part of the music. I did take Communion--thanks for the pez dispenser tip, Vox--its very tempting to stick out your tongue. There was this thing where people were touching the floor that I did my best to mimic and am reading up on that. Priest was very friendly. I am definitely going back. The deacon, Cantor and priest have good pitch and a pretty tone and that made it really nice. Also most women were veiled. That this Liturgy was written in the 4/5th century makes it extra special. How much closer to the source can you get?! I am excited at the prospect of being a part of this church. They have a class on Tues night for adults---I might go. Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/conversation/383?page=1#ixzz4vaIwOXDk
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 15, 2017 9:16:17 GMT -5
Pacelli, Yes my knowledge is limited but. I want to see your sources I.e scans. Those bishops accounted for a majority of the territory. For one thing all the Ukrainian bishops were busy with the war effort - effort meaning dealing with a devastating war. If they did ordain married men it was during a time of chaos where priests were being arrested and the same bishops were dealing with the Germans on one side and the encroaching Red army on the other. Why I tend to doubt your info is that Bp. Khomyshyn (for example) would never ordain married men, he was absolutely against it. He was not the type of man to change his mind and it contradicts the experience of people who were there (in Ukraine) during the war and before it. Wenceslav, Feel free to question my sources any time you like, I don't mind, and welcome it. The truth should be and must be our only goal. I have thousands and thousands of books, journals, reviews, and digests in my personal library. It takes me time to find things, actually, as I am not the best librarian. But, in the interest of truth, I will take the time to find things. To speed things up here, I have found an online source that supports my assertion. If this is not sufficient, I will dig around for more, but it will take some time.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 15, 2017 11:14:44 GMT -5
Pacelli's quote from website said: It may sound (in the above excerpt) that the ruling was reversed in Przemysl and Stanyslavov but it actually was not. Knowing how "anti-Byzantinist" Bp. Khomyshyn was, there was no way he would have ordained a married man. Your source also does not say that those seminaries (Przemysl and Stanyslaviv) actually ordained any married clergy after their first prohibition in the 1920s. Perhaps they borrowed married priests (due a lack of clergy, it happened I suppose) but the prohibition stayed until their seminaries were closed (i.e. destroyed) in 1945.
Summary: 1.The Ukrainian bishops (the ones that had a seminary in their eparchy) strongly favoured a celibate clergy for the reasons that I detailed in my first post in this thread. 2. Met. Szeptitsky (unaware to me, but then my relatives were not from his immediate region) reversed that (according to your source). I still think it was a temporary move. 3. I stand by my knowledge of the situation that the other two Bishops did not reverse their first prohibition. (I to0 will find the info if you want) 4. I stand by my first premise (more that just a simple hypothesis), that there was a high probability that Ukrainian Catholic priests today would be celibate if it wasn't for the war and the subsequent chaos of the Bolshevik liquidation of the UGCC. 5. If it wasn't for the purposeful wishy-washy attitude exhibited by the Modernist post-VII Vatican, married candidates in the diaspora wouldn't have had a chance of getting ordained. 6. The other Eastern rites were already on the road(not completely there yet) towards a completely celibate clergy before the chaos of Vatican II.
But thanks for your time and if I hadn't, already, I want to thank you for taking the time to share your vast resources. I really appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 15, 2017 11:26:50 GMT -5
Pacelli's quote from website said: It may sound (in the above excerpt) that the ruling was reversed in Przemysl and Stanyslavov but it actually was not. Knowing how "anti-Byzantinist" Bp. Khomyshyn was, there was no way he would have ordained a married man. Your source also does not say that those seminaries (Przemysl and Stanyslaviv) actually ordained any married clergy after their first prohibition in the 1920s. Perhaps they borrowed married priests (due a lack of clergy, it happened I suppose) but the prohibition stayed until their seminaries were closed (i.e. destroyed) in 1945. Summary: 1.The Ukrainian bishops (the ones that had a seminary in their eparchy) strongly favoured a celibate clergy for the reasons that I detailed in my first post in this thread. 2. Met. Szeptitsky (unaware to me, but then my relatives were not from his immediate region) reversed that (according to your source). I still think it was a temporary move. 3. I stand by my knowledge of the situation that the other two Bishops did not reverse their first prohibition. (I to will find the info if you want) 4. I stand by my first premise (more that just a simple hypothesis), that there was a high probability that Ukrainian Catholic priests today would be celibate if it wasn't for the war and the subsequent chaos of the Bolshevik liquidation of the UGCC. 5. If it wasn't for the purposeful wishy-washy attitude exhibited by the Modernist post-VII Vatican, married candidates in the diaspora wouldn't have had a chance of getting ordained. 6. The other Eastern rites were already on the road(not completely there yet) towards a completely celibate clergy before the chaos of Vatican II. On the matter of the facts of the case, I will take your word for it, no need to belabor this. On the matter of your opinions of what might have been today, I do not agree. The 1929 law of celibacy was harming Catholics in the diaspora. That much is a fact, and the very large number of Catholics that left the Church predominantly over this issue is staggering. Most of what I have read indicates that this law was being pushed by Roman Rite bishops that did not want married clergy in their lands. Whether that is true or not, people certainly believed it. I really do not think that eastern Catholics would have peacefully accepted a change in this custom in their homelands. IMO, there would have been a decline in vocations, and the people would not have accepted it very easily. Whether it would have caused large numbers to go into schism, as it did in the diaspora is debatable. Either way, IMO, imposing celibacy in the east would have been a mistake, it is not harming souls in those rites, but the imposition of celibacy can be the spark that starts a schism, which history has already shown. This is besides the fact of all of the other arguments for and against priestly celibacy in the east. Clearly, your opinion and my opinion differ on this matter. No sources can prove a hypothetical, so it best that we leave this matter at this juncture.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 15, 2017 15:23:11 GMT -5
I went to Vespers and Divine Liturgy last night (my first time) at a Byzantine rite Catholic Church and it was awesome. All the colors of the icons, the incease,the constant singing and chanting. The male cantor, who was seated behind me was really nice to show me where we were in the book all the time cause I wanted to sing as much as I could and can sight sing without difficulty---I loved being part of the music. I did take Communion--thanks for the pez dispenser tip, Vox--its very tempting to stick out your tongue. There was this thing where people were touching the floor that I did my best to mimic and am reading up on that. Priest was very friendly. I am definitely going back. The deacon, Cantor and priest have good pitch and a pretty tone and that made it really nice. Also most women were veiled. That this Liturgy was written in the 4/5th century makes it extra special. How much closer to the source can you get?! I am excited at the prospect of being a part of this church. They have a class on Tues night for adults---I might go. Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/conversation/383?page=1#ixzz4vaIwOXDkAs I indicated else where...dont go to the Classes thats where the liberals have a base camp set up. Its not worth the aggravation. I can answer almost all basic questions you might have (I think)
|
|
|
Post by kim on Oct 16, 2017 3:15:06 GMT -5
If I donate money to this parish where is the money going?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 16, 2017 4:38:47 GMT -5
If I donate money to this parish where is the money going? Put in envelope and write..."Parish mantainence" or upkeep on face.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 16, 2017 7:42:39 GMT -5
If I donate money to this parish where is the money going? Put in envelope and write..."Parish mantainence" or upkeep on face. Good idea. Even with traditionalist groups, I'm pretty much the same. Locally, there is one "trad thing" where I object to my money going. Same might be so with the Eastern rites. What I do is to donate for something specific, new roof, flower fund, etc., or I will buy heavily from a bake sale or other worthy fundraiser. I would think some Eastern parishes keep most of their collection to go to the priest's living expenses and the utilities to heat or cool the buildings. It isn't like the Novus Ordo with oodles of cash to waste and tons of assets to liquidate when money gets tight.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Oct 16, 2017 8:08:20 GMT -5
Ok thanks--good idea--but if Injust dropped a 20---where would it go?
|
|
|
Post by kim on Oct 16, 2017 8:16:34 GMT -5
God Bless you richly, Kim. We are all doing our best, and I know you are by what you have posted. I have only a diocesan Latin Mass available where I live. There has never been any training for us to decifer “what’s-what” from a pre-Vatican 2 point of view. This is bad, to a certain extent, but nobody seems too upset if somebody wanders in not dressed in a certain way or has no veil. Maybe this isn’t so bad—it’s not perfect, but we’re trying. Frankly, if an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy were available to me I would probably go. It would be a bridge to my daughter and her family who have chosen the Orthodox route—which breaks my heart. Don’t lose heart! I'm Curious---why did your family choose the Orthodox route? What things convinced them? The last time I was at Novus Ordo, the priest was pushing a class on the Benedict Option---which was written by Prot to Cath to Orthodox author Rod Dreher. I think it is a valuable book. A spokesperson for Francis says he opposes the ideas proposed in the book.
|
|