What do you want from your church?

Brother Ed,

Does your rite allow for married clergy in the United States? From a discussion I had with a Byzantine priest friend of mine in Toronto, Ohio, I was told that this is not allowed in the United States.

It is not allowed in the United States because our bishops are cowards and will not stand up for that which is our heritage and patrimony. Even JPII said that the Eastern rites need to be fully Eastern in Lumen Gentium, but for some reason, no one in the bishops will step up to the plate and do what needs to be done.

The Irish bishops back in the '20's got this problem started for us. Prior to that, when the Ruthenians were coming over from Europe, they were bringing over their married priests with them, which scandalized the Irish, who should have been minding their own business and taking care of things like the Kennedy clan in Boston.

I hope some day someone will go to seminary and DEMAND to be ordained as a married person. It is our right as Easterners.

Nice to see you again. BTW, your paper on the kingdom is OUTSTANDING. May I download it?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS Do you graduate this year?

The word of God, preached by a man who dreads false doctrine, and knows souls are in the balance.

Hi Ed,

Yes, you may download my paper for your own personal use.

No, I do not graduate this year; I am staying in Steubenville for the summer to work for the Christian Conference office (http://www.franciscanconferences.com), grill out on my back porch, drink some Corona, and read a couple of books I've been wanting to get to for some time.

Then, there is a good chance I may spend this next fall after October 1st studying at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelicum) in Rome and live on the Roman Forum in a convent attached to Sts Cosmas & Damian Basilica.

My graduate date will be May of 2004.

Isn't it also true that bishops in your rite may not be married? And that once ordained, one cannot marry thereafter?

RE: the bishops, yes, it is true. I think it a good thing to keep a man from remarrying in the office, however, I wonder why a man must forgo marriage once in.

Of course, they only ordain older men, which I think is appropriate. There is something about a 33 year old "elder" that just doesn't seem quite right.

Brother Ed

If you haven't figured me out yet, I'm pointing out how celibacy is a strong and revered discipline in your tradition.

Yes, it is, and as for those who can receive it, it is a blessing. But as our Lord said, not everyone can receive this nor has this gift. We do NOT MANDATE that our priests must be celebate, and that is the difference between us. I think that such a mandate puts unwarranted hardship upon men as well as limiting the pool of candidates for the priesthood.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

I think that such a mandate puts unwarranted hardship upon men

I would think that the unwarranted hardship would be juggling the ministerial priesthood, a marriage, and a family all at the same time.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I think that such a mandate puts unwarranted hardship upon men

I would think that the unwarranted hardship would be juggling the ministerial priesthood, a marriage, and a family all at the same time.

Click to expand...

I think that perhaps, Ed sees some truth in this:

2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), - 1 Timothy 3:2-5 NASB

Well spoken, Dual.

Carson, perhaps you should ask some Orthodox MARRIED priests about how marriage has
"interfered" with their ability to run a parish.

One of the reasons that priests are so hard pressed to run a parish is because the people in the parish do not use the gifts God gave them to aid in the work of God!. Thus, the priest is saddled with all the work of the parish, plus visitation of the sick, evangelism [IF any is done at all], cleaning of the parish, care of vestments, running errands, etc. etc. etc.

The sad TRUTH of the matter is that most (not all, I grant you, but MOST) of the people in American parishes treat "church" the same as they treat going to the movies. Entertain me, make me feel better, and "Thank you, I'll be going now. See ya same time next weekend" American "Christians" are SCANDALOUSLY LAZY AND SELFISH when it comes to supporting their parishes. The average giving in Catholic parishes is WELL BELOW THE BIBLICAL MANDATE OF THE TITHE!! And WORK?

The only time most people in a parish roll up their sleeves and volunteer is when there is going to be a parish festival.

Stop spewing out the standard Roman defense on this married priesthood business. I'm Orthodox (even if YOU don't accept that) and I don't buy it for one second!!! You know good and darn well that the reason for the elimination of married priests has to do with the corruptions of the Medieval Church in the taking of the properties of the widows in of priests, which caused no small scandal. Rome's answer, in typical breaucractic lunacy , rather than to fix the problem, was to outlaw a valid sacrament (marriage) to the priesthood.

It would be far better if the Latin bishops would get busy cleaning up the mess they have made and let us have our married priests (which, as I said, JPII made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WE SHOULD DO) and not hassle us to death over it. Your rite has far more important things to worry about than something this insignificant, which we are entitled to as Easterners anyway.

Carson, I still love ya as a brother and a friend, but I am not about to give everything you say a carte blanch pass just because you are a fellow Catholic who is brilliant (I say this honestly and without sarcasm intended) and seminary edjecated.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS I still do not understand what it is that makes the Church make the administrative decisions they make. I accept the position of the infallibility of the Holy Father and Ordinary Magisterium, but in regards to the actual administration of the Church ---- yeeeeeeesh!!!

Very interesting...

You know good and darn well that the reason for the elimination of married priests has to do with the corruptions of the Medieval Church

No, I do not know that, nor do I affirm it. A good friend of mine - Emily Stimpson - whose blogspot is quite well-known and praised, has researched and read extensively on this issue (http://emilystimpson.blogspot.com); she is both a revert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism and a fellow MA Theology student at the University (and an incredible cook I might add - she's cooking for me this Sunday evening.. Mmmmmmm). She returned to the Church a couple years back while working on "the hill" in D.C. through extensive reading and conversing with a mutual friend (i.e., Rob) who himself came into the Church under Al Kresta after being raised in a very strong Baptist family (NB: one of his cousins was received into the Church this Easter in Ann Arbor, MI). Rob is one of most learned men I know of (in theology, the arts, history, and politics) - his personal library numbers 10 bookcases. We're hoping that I can room with Rob if and when he moves to Steubenville to pursue his own MA in Theology. At present, he's working for the Heritage Foundation (a renowned conservative thinktank in D.C.).

The issue of priestly celibacy is not my forte, so I will, accordingly, refer both you and me to Emily's research.

Below, I've copied one of the blogs from her website for your reading pleasure:

"An Argument from History

"True or False: From the beginning, the Catholic Church let her priests marry. Only in the 11th Century, did She impose total celibacy on her ministers in order to prevent their children from inheriting the wealth of the Church.

"False. Way false. First, the Church never permitted priests to marry. She did ordain married men, but only with the understanding that they would neither sleep with their wives after ordination, nor remarry if their wives died. In present day Eastern Rite Catholic Churches and in Orthodox Churches, ordained priests are still forbidden to marry or remarry after taking their sacred vows. Marital relations, however, are no longer verboten.

"Here’s a little timeline (with some long explanations) of the Church’s first recorded statements on celibacy. Note: I am not trying to answer the “why” question here. We’ll get to that later. The following information is simply a historical corrective to the notion that mandatory celibacy began in the 11th century.

"305 AD: The Council of Elvira forbade bishops, priests, and deacons from sleeping with their wives after ordination. The Council records include no explanation of the canon and no record of protest, just a call for obedience. This strongly indicates that this was not a new rule the Bishops decide to impose on themselves and their fellow priests, just a restatement of what was already known.

"It is important to remember that the first instances of doctrinal or disciplinary statements do not generally indicate that the belief itself is new. Usually, Church historians assume that prior to the first official declaration on a subject, there was a long-standing tradition in the Church of that belief or practice. A formal declaration became necessary only when the belief was questioned or the discipline disobeyed. For instance, the Catholic Church has always taught that Christ was fully God, of the very same substance of the Father. But, only with the spread of the Arian heresy which taught that Christ was only a semi-deity, did the Church, at the Council of Nicea, formally define Christ’s divine nature.

"This appears to be the case with celibacy. 305 AD coincides with the Church’s emergence from the catacombs. As the great waves of persecution ceased, the Church and her ministers began experiencing greater freedom and prosperity. Compared to dancing in the arena with lions, celibacy wasn’t all that much of a challenge. So, once the martyrdom threat disappeared, an increasing number of ministers most likely began questioning or disregarding the Church’s call to total celibacy. Accordingly, the Church responded in 305 by issuing a reminder to married, ordained ministers that their sacred vows bound them to total celibacy.

"Further Statements on Celibacy in the early Church:

"314 AD: The Council of Arles again forbade all bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives, and threatened those guilty of breaking this vow with removal from the clergy.

"385 AD: In response to a request from a Spanish bishop, Pope Siricus issued a reminder to all married clergy that their vow of perpetual continence is “indissoluble.”

"390 AD: The Council of Carthage denied the appeal of some married priests who wished to continue having sexual relations with their wives. Their exact words? “What the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep.” Note: The petitioning priests made no appeal to a tradition of optional celibacy. Had such a tradition ever existed, the priests certainly would have mentioned it, as it would have been the strongest case for granting their petition. Its absence strongly indicates that celibacy was never considered optional in the early Church.

"So, reason #1 for priestly celibacy? It is part of the Apostolic Tradition"

I also encourage you to read her explanation on the instrinsic value of total celibacy (i.e. the why); it's quite revealing and, in my estimation, valuable in understanding its worth:

http://emilystimpson.blogspot.com/2002_05_05_emilystimpson_archive.html#76402977

[ April 26, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

Carson --

I have posted your response over on the byzcath.org web forum for further reflection, however, allow me a couple of points if I may.

1. I think that there is a distinct posibility of prejudice regarding Emily's position. She would be desiring to prove beyond doubt that the Church has not erred in making the statements it has made regarding the celebacy issue. I think that you will find that the Orthodox will have a considerably different understanding, one that I will be both eager to see and will share with you as I get responses.

2. Inasmuch as she appeals to the "benefits" of a celebate priesthood, allow me to appeal to the SCRIPTURAL benefits of a married priesthood.

As you MUST HAVE HEARD from Dr. Hahn if you are in his classes, the Church on earth is an extension and type of the true covenantal family in Heaven. We have God the Father, Who, from His love relationship with the Son, the Living Word, brought forth in procession the Holy Spirit (who proceeds from the Father and the Son). This union of the Father and the Word which brings forth the life giving Spirit is the eternal family, of which earthly families are a type.

The Church is a type of the Trinity, for you have the Holy Father, the Holy Mother Church, and the children who are brought to life (believers) by the work of the Holy Father and the Church.

Within that larger framework, each family is called a "domestic church". Therefore, each family is a type and representation of the Church, which is a type and representation of the kingdom family in Heaven.

HOW then, is an unmarried priest a representation of the covenantal family which is the kingdom of God? How does an unmarried priest show forth a type of the Trinity in Heaven?

It is for this same reason that the Church has rightly condemned artificial birth control, for it mars and destroys the image and typology of the life giving relationship of the Trinity. As the love relationship of the Father and the Word brings forth the life giving Spirit, so the love relationship of the husband and wife should also bring forth life.

I am not against celebacy, but I am against mandating it when Scripture (which I thought is supposed to be ABOVE AND SUPERIOR TO ALL COUNCILS AND TRADITIONS) allows for it, typology demands it, and reality shows that it is hurting the Church by keeping well qualified and godly married men from serving the needs of the Church.

To me, this is just more of the same old Roman administrative stubbornness which the makes the Orthodox look with considerable suspicion upon pleas for unity. We Byzantines united with Rome centuries ago and have spent a considerable amount of time regretting the heavy hand of Latin administration. And it still continues today. As I said...there are far more important issues in the Church than this, but the Roman curia will climb this hill and die upon it before budging an inch, won't they?

I'm going to tell you something...from things I have overheard in discussions among priests and laity in our rite....we are not at odds in doctrine, but I will swear to you that there is a considerable lack of respect for the bishops in your rite as to how they are running the Church...or should I say running it into the ground. It is NOT pretty to hear, believe me, and the sad thing is that those who COULD do something about it....most likely won't, which will keep the sore festering for decades to come.

In the Catholic Faith, Latin is a rite, one of many. Unfortunately, many, many in the Roman church, they think and act as if Latin is "right" and everyone else ought to be like them 100%.

I will post responses to you.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Addendum:

I was toddling about the house and thinking and perhaps it is just my own personal mindset on this issue, but it seems to me that the insistence upon unmarried priests is a kind of left handed way of saying that we in the East really do not practice the Catholic or universal Faith. I find this distressing and demeaning.

[ April 26, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

Ed, when are you going to visit Steubenville? Are you planning on coming up to the Defending the Faith Conference between July 18th and 20th? As you probably already know, I'll be driving vans for the Christian Conference Office for the summer.

[Emily] would be desiring to prove beyond doubt that the Church has not erred in making the statements it has made regarding the celebacy issue.

I wouldn't say that she's trying to prove the inerrancy of particular Church statements as much as she is trying to show that universally mandated celibacy is a discipline that dates throughout the entire history of the Church.

According to her (and she is well read on this issue), during the first 700 years of the Church, Rome expected all of her ordained ministers to embrace total celibacy. Council after council, pope after pope upheld this apostolic discipline until the Council of Trullo, which was convened by the Emperor Justinian in 680 AD to have the bishops transfer the primacy previously given to the see of Rome to the see of Constantinople.

The earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times.

HOW then, is an unmarried priest a representation of the covenantal family which is the kingdom of God? How does an unmarried priest show forth a type of the Trinity in Heaven?

A celibate ministerial priest shows forth the Trinity as Jesus Christ showed forth the Trinity in his life on Earth. Remember, celibacy is Christocentric. Celibacy is one of the visible signs of the priest's configuration to Christ and His divine office. He embraces permanent continence in order to more completely partake in the fullness of Christ’s priesthood. He's an alter Christus. Just as Christ sacrificed His life for His bride, the Church, so too must a priest offer up his life for the good of Christ's people. This sacrifical love is a sharing in as well as a type of Trinitarian love.

The image used to describe the role of the priest is one of marriage to the Church. Just as marriage is the total gift of self to another, the priesthood requires the total gift of self to the Church. A priest's first duty is to his flock, while a husband's first duty is to his wife. Obviously, these two roles will often conflict, as St. Paul noted and as many married priests will tell you. A celibate priest is able to give his undivided attention to his parishioners without the added responsibility of caring for his own family. They are able to pick up and go whenever necessary, whether this involves moving to a new parish or responding to a late-night crisis. Celibate priests are better able to respond to these frequent changes and demands on their time and attention.

Scripture (which I thought is supposed to be ABOVE AND SUPERIOR TO ALL COUNCILS AND TRADITIONS) allows for it

In 1 Corinthians, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage... Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that... The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).

Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."

Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it.

reality shows that it is hurting the Church by keeping well qualified and godly married men from serving the needs of the Church.

Do you believe in the myth that mandated celibacy is the cause of the current vocations crisis?

Firstly, any qualified man can apply for the deaconate to serve "the needs of the Church". Let us also keep in mind that no one has the right to the ministerial priesthood, and it is - in the end - the Church's decision as to whether one is called be a priest.

There are overflowing vocations today in faithful dioceses: Denver, Northern Virginia, and Lincoln have great numbers of men entering the priesthood. Challenge young men to a religious life that is demanding, countercultural, sacrificial, and loyal to the Holy Father and Catholic teaching. This is the surest way to guarantee a greater number of vocations.

Emily has this to say about the matter:

"The disciplines of priestly celibacy and consecrated virginity have been practiced in the Church, formally and informally, since 33 AD. Despite that fact, millions of men and women answered God's call to the religious life. But, according to the reasoning quoted above, the whole celibacy thing just wasn't an issue for our un-sexed fathers in the faith. Not until the last day of Vatican II, did Catholics discover the joys and wonders of their sexuality and start running from the call to religious life.

"Or maybe, just maybe, the vocations crisis isn't about celibacy. Maybe it's about the creeping heresies which have worked their way into so many dioceses, parishes, and religious education programs since Vatican II. Maybe it's about the failure of many priests and catechists to prepare young people to deal with the temptations of a hyper-sexed society. And maybe the fact that the most orthodox dioceses and religious orders have no vocations crisis should say something to those who automatically link 'vocations crisis' to 'celibacy'".

To me, this is just more of the same old Roman administrative stubbornness

And that is the reason that I'm posting Emily Stimpson's research for you. So that this view you have may be nuanced by history and reason.

If you would like to converse with her personally, you may reach her at emilystimpson@hotmail.com

In the Catholic Faith, Latin is a rite, one of many. Unfortunately, many, many in the Roman church, they think and act as if Latin is "right" and everyone else ought to be like them 100%.

That is unfortunate isn't it? Let us not allow this attitude that others hold muddle a clear analysis of the issue.

[ April 27, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

I just got off the phone with Emily, and she referred me to Theology of Priestly Celibacy by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, S.J. (she's a book monger - not as bad as Rob or Hahn though):
http://www.catholicstore.com/search/index.cfm/FuseAction/itemDisplay/SKU/17538/affiliate/catholic-pagescom66

My roommate also just handed me a text entitled The Case for Clerical Celibacy by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler - this is the first text I've ever read on the issue, and it's extremely revealing.. I had no clue as to how widespread and strict the laws (ius) were in the universal early Church (Latin and Oriental) concerning clerical continence. This text is published by Ignatius:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898705339/qid%3D1051417535/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-0074898-8569672

For example, I quote from pgs 58-60:

"An important first witness [of the Eastern Church] is Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis, later elevated to the episcopal see of Constantia (ancient Salamis) in Cyprus (315-403). He was well known as an expert defender of orthodoxy and of the tradition of the Church, which he would have known well during his long life of eighty-six years, spanning almost all of the fourth century...

"Concerning the question of the continence of the higher clergy, he provides us with a typical account of the actual situation. In his principal work, the Panarion, written in the second half of the fourth century, he states that the God of the world has shown the charism of the new priesthood, either through men who have renounced the use of their sole marriage contracted before ordination or through those who have always lived as virgins. That, he says, is the norm which was established by the apostles in both wisdom and holiness.

"Of even more importance is the assertion that he makes in his Expositio fidei, the preface to his principal work. The Church, he says, admits to the episcopal and priestly ministry and also to the diaconal ministery only those who renounce, in continence, their own spouses or who have become widowers. He continues that at least here one can see that the provisions of the Church are faithfully observed. However, it can also be asserted that, in various places, priests, deacons, and subdeacons continue to have children. He claims nonetheless that this does not correspond to the actual norm but is rather a consequence of human weakness which always takes the easier path. He further explains that priests are chosen above all from those who are celibate or monks. If sufficient candidates cannot be found from this group, then they will also be chosen either from the married, who, however, have to renounce the use of marriage, or from among those who, after a sole marriage, have become widowers.

"These assertions made by an individual who knew many languages and who had an intimate knowledge of the Church during a period in which she was already divided by many doctrines, are a reliable and significant testimony to the common norms as well as to the actual situation concerning the praxis of celibacy in the Eastern Church."

[ April 27, 2003, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

So in other words, regarding the MANDATE of the Early Church to priests that their married priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives, the TRADITIONS AND THOUGHTS of men are on a higher plane and authority than the Word of God:

1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

One wonders what respect these bishops had for the Word of God when they would ORDER their priests to violate the above Scriptures?!?!?

Furthermore, if this is such a MONSTEROUSLY IMPORTANT issue, then one wonders why the Roman rite would welcome married priests from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism and not enforce celebacy upon them. Doesn't the same standard apply to them as to others, or are they somehow different and better men who CAN handle a parish and a family at the same time?

Again, I must also reiterate that the councils you refer to are LOCAL COUNCILS and not binding upon the eccumenical economia of the whole Church. What was problematic for the West was never a problem for the East, such as the Protestant Rebellion. We never had it, therefore, we never needed the Council of Trent to answer the heresies. When East and West do finally come back together, the AUTHORITY of Trent is going to be one of those issues which will be rather nettlesome to iron out.

You also didn't answer my addendum. Are we Easterners LESS THAN CATHOLIC because we support a SCRIPTURAL MARRIED CLERGY? If you tell me that married clergy is unscriptural, then you lose my respect, as well as that of the Protestants. It is no wonder they cannot take us seriously when we have personal opinions which go beyond that of Scripture. And that is all that I see this as being. Those councils you quote were filled with men who somehow felt that sexual union with one's wife, rather than being a picture of the union of love in Heaven, was somehow dirty and demeaning to a man, making him less holy.

Scripture takes a considerably more exalted view.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Despite my many disagreements with Ed, I find some of his views very refreshing.

Considering my own disenchantment with Catholicism, the whole topic of
enticement over some clergyman's sexual habits seems like a meaningless
waste of time to me.

Originally posted by Singer:
Considering my own disenchantment with Catholicism, the whole topic of
enticement over some clergyman's sexual habits seems like a meaningless
waste of time to me.

Click to expand...

Why do I get the impression that you were well "disenchanted" with Catholicism well before the sex abuse scandals came to light?

I would ask you to pray for such priests, sir, as I would encourage all to pray for those in the non-Catholic community to pray for their own clergy to have done likewise.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

Singer --

Let's understand something. The Catholic FAITH is the Faith which Christ God gave to the apostles to give to the whole earth, NOT the heresies of Protestantism and its multitudinous varients. Your disenchantment with the Catholic Faith is your own personal argument with Christ Himself Who established the Faith and to Whom you shall answer one day for opposing it.

However, the issue of this discussion, which seems meaningless to you, is deeper than just the sexual habits of the clergy. It has to do with the consistent meddlesomeness of the Latin Church in other rites.

It is not an issue of the Faith -- it is an issue of HOW the Church is going to be administered and whether or not we, as Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome, are going to be allowed to be sui juris (self-governing) bodies within the Church, or Latin lackeys. I apologize if the phrasing annoys or offends my Latin brethren, but until you have lived in the East for a while and have heard some of the administrative horror stories of the stuff we have had to put up with, then you will not understand. His Holiness, Pope John Paul II is probably the BEST of the popes to finally understand that the East is NOT the West, and that we have a right to those worship traditions and rites we have developed in the East. Our union with Rome should not make us LATINS. Unfortunately, that has not always been the opinion of the Irish bishops nor of many of our own bishops who, rather than fight to keep our way authentic, caved in to the noise from the West.

Singer, if you go through history, you will find a sad litany of maladministration of the Church from the headquarters in Rome. While the Ordinary Magisterium and the Holy Fathers throughout the ages have defended true theology and kept us from being heretics, sadly, it cannot be said that they have administered well. I feel it my job to make a difference between doctrine an administration and to point out to all, especially my Latin brothers, when the are stepping on our toes without warrant.

That is especially the case in this issue.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed