Jimbo,

You do make a good point. It does mean very much for married non-Roman rite priests to be so loyal to Rome.

The only worries I have about any married priest in our Church is whether the Church will get the property it derserves (I don't know the detalis of the amount the Church gets), w/o getting in a fight with the priests familiy.
I am also worried about whether they want a liberal Pope that will turn the Church around.

Anyway, we need the Maronites, they are one of us, they support us and thats what matters.

God Bless Them ~Universially,

Cas.

The Eastern rites, in their traditional lands, have ordained married men for two millennia and seem to have figured out how to do it without losing all the church's property. So I wouldn't be concerned.

As an aside, the property issue comes up with celibate latin rite priests too. Most dioceses ask priests to periodically inventory what is theirs personally and what belongs to the parish or diocese. This is done to prevent the occasionally awkward or nasty things that have unfortunately happened. Sometimes priests get into squabbles about who owns the TV or the funiture (for example) when they want to take it when they are reassigned. More commonly, after a priest's death, sometimes relatives come in and just assume that what he used was his, and the diocese must try to recover the computer!

It's been a difficult day. It's late. I should sleep. Maybe that's why I'm puzzled by this sentence compared to the rest of what I read...

matteo d'basio,

Thnaks that cleared me up.

You definately do your HW. I have no more serious worries about the Eastern rites...

In Peace,

Cas.

It has nothing to do with what words are best liked. As Lutheranism transitioned from masses in Latin to German, "catholicam" was usually translated into German as "christliche" (by RCs and Lutherans alike). None of it had anything to do with identifying "catholic" with what the Lutheran referred to as the "Papists." Later, as Lutherans emigrated to America, some translated "christliche" as "Christian," while others have translated from the latin using "catholic." In Lutheran theology, there is no difference. It is true that some have avoided using "catholic" to avoid confusion with the RCC. Hence the notes in the worship books.

The Lutheran Confessions view the Papacy as the Antichrist. Lutherans differ as to whether this is a theological or historical judgment, or both. Historically Lutherans had no issue with the view of the pope as visible head of the Church as a matter of custom so long has he taught the pure Gospel, defined as salvation by grace through faith alone (i.e. not through faith and works). (In which case he could also not be identified with the Antichrist.) Lutherans object to the view that the pope is head of the Church by divine right.

You know (just thinking out loud here)....

If the Traddies are right.........

THESE PEOPLE ARE IN DEEEEEEEEEEP Kimchee

for their treatment of the Church and the Holy Father.

Brother Ed

as IFFFFF these words haven't been spoken since "ancient" days. ::): Give me a break!

[blatant sarcasm]Hey, I know! Let's change the words so we like them better. Those old words are just ancient, not really what I think we should say. Yeah, that sounds better. I like it like that. No, change this word........ta da! You too can be a Protestant! [/blatant sarcasm]

Offended? Moi? Never.

But I will remind you that the Church has changed quite a few literal statements of Jesus' to "Well, what he meant was. . ."

I think this is a dangerous place for ANY of us to be terribly smug about because I don't see a single religion in my field of vision that does not out-right ignore some very literal and direct words of Jesus'. How much less important picking-apart the interpretation of "councils" and "creeds" than ignore, outright, the direct words of our Lord.

Catholics do it. Protestants do it. Those who want a foot in both places do it. It is frought with danger unimaginable.