Starboard

Sep 28, 2006 16:31

I'm going to try and visit an Orthodox parish, St. Elias on 11th & Trinity, for Vespers on Saturday; see what it's like and so forth, to complement my reading. I've been really considering 'moving East' actually and finally. I imagine it'd be different if I were already confirmed; I'm not, so I have the leeway to honestly look at the pertinent ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 8

daysprings September 28 2006, 21:53:53 UTC
There are married Catholic priests as well, of course, in the eastern rites - Byzantine, Maronite, etc. In the case of intercommunion with the Orthodox and the sad fact of our schism, I think that priestly celibacy is actually far down on the list of issues keeping us apart, since that's an issue that could be easily dealt with.

Reply

virescere September 29 2006, 00:01:51 UTC
Oh, I know it's not important as far as ecumenical issues go.

I am just rather attached to our Western Catholic practice. A priest in my mind is strictly celibate.

Reply


doctor_aquinas September 29 2006, 00:28:24 UTC
"Now a bishop must be above reproach ... He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way--for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?" (1 Timothy 3. 2-5) Thought you might find that intruiging.

You are the second Catholic I know of considering a switch to Eastern Orthodoxy--Rod Dreher rather notably being the other. It's a fine faith, though deciding between East and Catholic on the basis of ecclesiatical legitimacy (that is, figuring out who was in the wrong in the 11th c. schism) is somehow even more impossibly thorny than the Catholic/Protestant question, in my view.

Reply

virescere September 29 2006, 05:19:34 UTC
I've never considered the Biblical treatment of clergy & celibacy; my reaction is more visceral. It seems odd to me that a distributor of the sacraments would have children simply because I've never met one who did, and it has always seemed entirely appropriate that a priest should be committed solely to his ecclesial duties.

But aside from figuring out the schism, the Roman things vexing me lately are purgatory & universal contraception ban. There's nothing particularly Orthodox that vexes me.

Reply

bloodypapist September 29 2006, 21:07:37 UTC
A few years ago I considered the same move--although 'move' seems too light a word, and 'conversion' too strong, though I don't know what else it would be but conversion--but came away more convinced than ever that, historically and ideally, the Church makes no sense without the reality of the unifying Magisterium. May God go with you in your searching.

Reply

virescere September 29 2006, 05:31:11 UTC
I should add though that Catholic/Prot was never thorny for me, upon my Christian 'reversion'; the catholic, apostolic understanding was the only possible via for that reversion.

Reply


crossedkeys September 29 2006, 02:48:15 UTC
I'd encourage you to stay home with Rome. Christ built his Church on Peter and his successors, not those of Constantinople.

As for the married priest thing, I'd say seek the Byzantine or Maronite rites.

BTW, I'm pro-SSPX and their Eastern Rite brothers, the Society of St. Josaphat.

Thank you for your time and God speed.

Reply

efriden July 9 2007, 18:41:56 UTC
Oh dear! There's an Eastern Catholic society of S:t Josaphat!? That sounds like a surefire way to get Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism going...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up