was the compromise of the catholic faith a compromise to much?

[johnridgway]

was the compromise of the catholic faith a compromise to much?

when the pope agreed to allow Anglican priests, married at that to become catholic priests,

quote
"and that does not mean that worshippers of the Ordinariate will be "mingled in" with Catholic congregations."

"They will have a special service in their own right," said Bishop McMahon.

so these so called priests will have there own Anglican / catholic services with there own doctrine.

does this mean that the catholic church is no longer catholic, by faith and by nature, but a new protestant / catholic mix.

in the name of uniting these churches, has the pope created a monster?

catholic should be catholic, no compromise, do you think the apostles would of compromised like this to the detrimental cost of faith and church.

[JharekCarnelian]

Not at all, there are married priests in other rites within the Church and there always have been. You are positing a false dilemma.

[Paxvobis]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Not at all, there are married priests in other rites within the Church and there always have been. You are positing a false dilemma.

Ditto.

[JharekCarnelian]

This struck me reading the OP again:-

so these so called priests

They are not 'so called' priests but are validy and licitly ordained and this is a very disrespecful way to refer to them. I see the original poster lives in Greece, I ask them would they refer to the clergy of that nation's most well known Church in such a manner? I particularly ask as they too are generally married. Even though the Greek Orthodox Church is not in communion with us their priest are validy ordained. I would find refering to them as 'so-called' priests dubious so when that term is used regarding validly ordained priests who have moved from the Anglican to Catholic Church it's highly objectionable indeed. Marriage prior to ordination is not an absolute impediment to ordination even in the west and in other sui juris Churches is very much a part of the traditions of those Churches.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Not at all, there are married priests in other rites within the Church and there always have been. You are positing a false dilemma.

Absolutely.

This raises my eyebrows, as does the disrespect in the OP.

There have ALWAYS been individual and specialized cases of married priests, as when a married priest, and convert to Catholicism, can get permission to continue being a priest after conversion.

[Usagi]

Also, and even more importantly, there is no indication that the Ordinariate parishes will have "their own doctrine." I'm pretty sure that part of the process involves the new Catholics signing on to "the full package" of teachings, so to speak, as well as modifications to any portion of the Anglican liturgy that expresses incorrect doctrine.

The new parishes will be allowed to retain their own centuries-old practices, but will not be Protestant or some kind of hybrid. They will be Catholics.

Usagi

[Melchior_]

IMHO, the status of the Anglicans who convert en masse like this is strikingly similar to the Eastern Rites We don't question them, we shouldn't question these guys.

That's one of the reasons I have so much respect for BXVI, the guy is just very smart and listens to the Holy Spirit. The solution for how to do with Anglican Churches who wanted to come over was right there, essentially the framework already in place, and he ran with it.

[eegardner]

In my Diocese I have a friend that is a married, former Episcopal priest that is now a Roman Catholic priest. I have seen him celebrate Mass. He is as much a Catholic priest as any priest that celebrates the Catholic Mass.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Usagi

Also, and even more importantly, there is no indication that the Ordinariate parishes will have "their own doctrine." I'm pretty sure that part of the process involves the new Catholics signing on to "the full package" of teachings, so to speak, as well as modifications to any portion of the Anglican liturgy that expresses incorrect doctrine.

The new parishes will be allowed to retain their own centuries-old practices, but will not be Protestant or some kind of hybrid. They will be Catholics.

Usagi

Absolutely correct.
The fact is that those from the Anglican communion who come into the Church are doing so because they ALREADY accept everything the Church teaches. The Magisterium of the Church made provision to get past the last bits of "practice" and "discipline" that separated us.

As someone else already pointed out there are a number of other rites in the Catholic Church that have married priests. I will point out that these groups also have their own unique liturgical forms, devotions etc. that are perfectly acceptable to Rome for these are matters of practice and not doctrine.

Peace
James

[Garyjohn2]

Originally Posted by johnridgway

does this mean that the catholic church is no longer catholic, by faith and by nature, but a new protestant / catholic mix.

Actually, catholic meaning "universal" or "throughout the world", the church is more catholic than ever! Also, if this denomination was brought in to communion with Rome, they are no longer protestant (meaning protesting against Rome).

catholic should be catholic, no compromise, do you think the apostles would of compromised like this to the detrimental cost of faith and church.

I think the apostles did compromise by taking Saul/Paul into their fold, a former murderous treacherous enemy to the faith! And that did them much good.

[archangel04]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

This struck me reading the OP again:-



They are not 'so called' priests but are validy and licitly ordained and this is a very disrespecful way to refer to them. I see the original poster lives in Greece, I ask them would they refer to the clergy of that nation's most well known Church in such a manner? I particularly ask as they too are generally married. Even though the Greek Orthodox Church is not in communion with us their priest are validy ordained. I would find refering to them as 'so-called' priests dubious so when that term is used regarding validly ordained priests who have moved from the Anglican to Catholic Church it's highly objectionable indeed. Marriage prior to ordination is not an absolute impediment to ordination even in the west and in other sui juris Churches is very much a part of the traditions of those Churches.

I was told Anglians don't have a valid priesthood. They would need to be be ordained by a Catholic Bishop.

[manualman]

It's poor form to call someone a 'so-called priest', but the fact is that Anglican priests are NOT considered to have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. When an Anglican priest converts to the catholic faith, he is not automatically a catholic priest. He must receive at least some additional formation and spiritual direction to confirm his vocation and then he is ordained. The process is accelerated due to the education he already has, but it isn't a recognition of the Anglican ordination.

All that aside, I'm thrilled to hear about the ordinariate. I wonder how widespread it will become? Seems like critical mass could be a serious problem for them.

[The Old Medic]

JohnRidgeway, you OBVIOUSLY do not know ANYTHING about your own faith.

The former Anglican Priests, who are ordained as Catholic priests are CATHOLIC PRIESTS. They are NOT restricted to only serving in Anglo-Catholic parishes.

And I hate to inform you, but the Catholic Priests has had married Priests since the very beginning, has ALWAYS had married priests and WILL always have married priests.

Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches routinely ordain married men to the Diaconate and to the priesthood.

The Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church has also ALWAYS ordained married men to become priests. While this was the exception after 800, it has always been possible, and occasionally done.

Most of the time that this occurs is when a Minister of another faith converts to the Catholic Church. They are put through a Seminary program, ordained and have all of the rights and the privledges of any other Catholic Priest, but they also keep their wife and family.

If their spouse dies (as is true in the Eastern Catholic Churches), they are NOT allowed to remarry.

There has been no "Compromise" of our faith at all. Only people that do not understand the teachings of their faith would even think such a thing, much less actually say it.

Shame on you, and on all that think as you do. These are 100% legitimate, VALIDLY AND LEGITIMATELY ORDAINED PRIESTS in the Roman Catholic Church! How dare you, or anyone else, call their ordination into question.

What are YOUR theological bases for making a claim such as you have made? Please cite the specific Church laws, and the specific Church teachings that invalidate their ordinations, and that make the Pope who approves of their ordination, and the Bishops that actually ordain them apostates. That is what you are accusing the leadership of our church of being, making a charge such as you, JRKH and some others around here are doing.

Do you REALLY think that YOUR knowledge, and YOUR Judgement is superior to that of Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI?

Each and every one of those popes allowed married men to be Ordained as Priests in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (as did almost all Popes before them, but MY experience has only been with those Popes).

I met my first Latin Rite MARRIED Roman Catholic Priest in 1958. He was home, visiting his married children. He had been a Lutheran Minister for over 30 years, had converted in the late 1940's, and was given a "quickie" Seminary program and ordained a priest in 1951. He was then sent to Germany, as it was felt that American Catholics would have a difficult time adjusting to "Father and Mrs. Jones"! (Not his real name.)

I am sick and tired of you "so called" Catholics substituting your IGNORANCE for the judgement of the Church. What you are promoting is nothing less than APOSTACY!

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by archangel04

I was told Anglians don't have a valid priesthood. They would need to be be ordained by a Catholic Bishop.

They do not but the OP is talking of former Anglican ministers who have been ordained by Catholic Bishops.

[PJM]

=johnridgway;8227527]was the compromise of the catholic faith a compromise to much?

when the pope agreed to allow Anglican priests, married at that to become catholic priests,

quote
"and that does not mean that worshippers of the Ordinariate will be "mingled in" with Catholic congregations."

"They will have a special service in their own right," said Bishop McMahon.

so these so called priests will have there own Anglican / catholic services with there own doctrine.

does this mean that the catholic church is no longer catholic, by faith and by nature, but a new protestant / catholic mix.

in the name of uniting these churches, has the pope created a monster?

catholic should be catholic, no compromise, do you think the apostles would of compromised like this to the detrimental cost of faith and church.

In my understanding; NO!

Married priest is NOT a Theological issue, it's a church practice, supported by RECENT Tradition, founded on common sense of rules of service to others. [Two-masters].

I am unaware [and would be very interested in learning] if any of the agreement orver-rides any defined Doctrine or Dogma. I suspect not.

It would be wise and PRUDENT to withold these kinds of judgments until it is shown to actually be an ISSUE, beyond speculation.

God Bless,
Pat