Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Apotheoun]

Well your memory is infallible, so no need to argue about anything.

God's memory is infallible, and it is His memory that is lived in the liturgy. The worshipper becomes assimilated to God's memory through the celebration of the sacred rites, so that he can actually say that he has personally experienced the events recalled, and that is why I spoke of the liturgy as a revelation of God in human form. The liturgy is incarnational, and not merely paschal (as it is sometimes affirmed in the West). In fact, the liturgy is also eschatological, for the Parousia happens at every liturgy. In the liturgy that which was, is, and is to come, is made manifest in God.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

What makes a man Orthodox? The answer given by the Holy Fathers to that question would be "right belief" and "right worship." Those two things are both conveyed by the word "orthodox," and they cannot be separated without corrupting the faith of the Church.

[arfink]

[Apteka]

On that issue, weren't you a Protestant for a while? I thought you stepped down as a moderator because you briefly left the Catholic Church (or questioned its legitimacy). Have I remembered that correctly or am I confusing you with someone else?

 

That explains a lot!

[Aloysius]

Ah, so you subscribe to the Lutheran view of a visible Church and an invisible Church. In Orthodoxy the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church exists only in and through the many local Churches, and there is no human Church as opposed to a divine Church. In fact, such a notion betrays a Nestorian Christology. The Church is - like Christ - divine and human at the same time, and so its historical existence cannot be separated from its divine subsistence. And so your perspective does sound pretty formless to me. To be honest I would call it a Protestant understanding of the Church, and I say that as a former Protestant.

this is a particularly obtuse response.  what I said is in no way related to Lutheran views of a visible and invisible church or a Nestorian Christology, no matter how much you want it to be... the associations you draw when they aren't there at all are astounding for the way they try to put words in my mouth (where did I distinguish between the human Church and the Divine Church in the way you describe?  just because I used the term 'human' I've suddenly become a Nestorian in your book lol).  there are human beings within the Church, and they do different things at different times in history--you yourself pointed out a time when there were married bishops, for instance.  Era pointed out the times when there have been Christian Empires interacting with the Church in intricately connected ways.  These things have pretty clearly changed.

[Aloysius]

the faith--right belief and right worship--does not change; but various things do change, and whether to have a married or mandatory celibate priesthood is one of those things that has changed over time in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

[arfink]

the faith--right belief and right worship--does not change; but various things do change, and whether to have a married or mandatory celibate priesthood is one of those things that has changed over time in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

 

Yes, but don't you know that Apo is the protector of the Church from every and all changes? Change is always wrong.

[Apotheoun]

this is a particularly obtuse response.  what I said is in no way related to Lutheran views of a visible and invisible church or a Nestorian Christology, no matter how much you want it to be... the associations you draw when they aren't there at all are astounding for the way they try to put words in my mouth (where did I distinguish between the human Church and the Divine Church in the way you describe?  just because I used the term 'human' I've suddenly become a Nestorian in your book lol).  there are human beings within the Church, and they do different things at different times in history--you yourself pointed out a time when there were married bishops, for instance.  Era pointed out the times when there have been Christian Empires interacting with the Church in intricately connected ways.  These things have pretty clearly changed.

There is nothing obtuse about my response; instead, I simply questioned the orthodoxy of what you were saying.

 

Do you believe that the "invisible Church" (or as I would prefer to call it, the eschatological Church) is one and the same with the visible Church on earth? If you believe that they are identical, then we are in agreement, but if reject their ontological unity it follows that we see things differently.

[Apotheoun]

I hardly think anything Era said could be categorized as wholesale "formlessness", though I can't speak for him.  the Faith is unchanging, but the historical truth that you have to accept is that the human Church is not, not the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church.  that doesn't mean formlessness for goodness sake.

It is the comment in boldface print that I reject. There can be no division between the so-called human Church and the Catholic Church. And yes, to divide the Church in the manner that you do in this post is a type of formlessness.

[Apotheoun]

the faith--right belief and right worship--does not change; but various things do change, and whether to have a married or mandatory celibate priesthood is one of those things that has changed over time in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

On the issue of married clergy I stand by what I have said, I think it is unwise for the Roman Church to break its one thousand year tradition of only ordaining unmarried men at a time when this will be interpreted as yet another modernization. Such an act will only harm the unity of the Church. And moreover, Rome has not been good at making changes - as is clear to anyone who has lived through the past 50 years - and I doubt Rome will institute the actual tradition of married clergy which requires liturgical continence. I mean Rome has failed to follow the tradition with its married diaconate, so why would one assume that it is going to follow the actual tradition with a married presbyterate.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apteka]

[Apotheoun]

I am still mystified by the fact that Roman Catholics appear willing to simply abandon all the things that make their Church unique. It is pretty sad when it is only non-Roman Catholics who lament the destruction of the Roman Rite.

[Apteka]

I am still mystified by the fact that Roman Catholics appear willing to simply abandon all the things that make their Church unique. It is pretty sad when it is only non-Roman Catholics who lament the destruction of the Roman Rite.

 

Rome has fallen, and no one cares. Let's all enjoy the 1960's folk music in our Gather hymnal! It's the new spring time, folks!

[Apotheoun]

If Rome alters its discipline on priestly celibacy I think it will probably adopt the Protestant Anglican practice.

[Era Might]

Actually, my worldview has its roots in Orthodoxy. While you do sound a lot like a Protestant.

 

On that issue, weren't you a Protestant for a while? I thought you stepped down as a moderator because you briefly left the Catholic Church (or questioned its legitimacy). Have I remembered that correctly or am I confusing you with someone else?

 

Me? Protestant? lol. I think you have me confused with yourself.