FEATURED ARTICLE, (Lutheran Pastor Inquiries, continued)..... 

3) Theolegoumena or theological opinions are those areas in which a Catholic is free to believe one thing or another.  For example, as a Catholic, I can believe that the Gospel of John was personally written by John, or that he dictated it to someone else who wrote it, or that John's disciples wrote it (based on his oral Traditions) after John's death.   There is no formal position of the Church on such points, and there are a great many things like this in Catholicism.  In fact, all dogmas start out as theolegoumena.   Mary's Immaculate Conception, for example, was merely a theolegoumenon, debated in the Church for centuries, before it was formally dogmatized in 1857.   

But, in regard to the burning of heretics and the prohibition of contraception, both these things are, at this moment in Church history, merely a matter of # 2 above ---that is, Canon Law.    As a Catholic, one could (or can) believe that the medieval Popes erred when they advocated the execution of heretics.  ....That they were uncivilzed barbarians who murdered people unjustly.   HOWEVER, ....   If one lived during this time, one was not free to challenge or usurp the Pope's authority (as Luther did) and publicly oppose the canon law of the Church, or deny its authority.    Likewise, in regard to contraception, ...  A Catholic is perfectly free to believe that Paul VI went too far in his teaching against contraception.  Yet, this same Catholic is still bound by Paul VI's teaching as far as obedience goes, and is not free to contracept.   True, it is possible (although highly unlikely) that a future Pope may adapt over relax Paul VI's position, since Humanae Vitae is not a dogmatic, ex cathedra statement.   Yet, it is still binding all the same as a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, and so has the force of ecclesial canon law.    Can you see the distinction?   For, many of your questions above are misapplying how we Catholics understand infallibility and confusing the issues of dogma and canon law.  Both are binding, but only dogma is infallible.   Canon law (for the most part) can be "bound or loosened" depending on the situation in which the Church finds itself.    The only thing that cannot be changed are the substantive, Apostolic truths involved in an expression of canon law, such as those found in regard to human dignity in Humanae Vitae. 

3.  Am I right that it was taught (and perhaps still is) that, if a Catholic eats meat on a Friday of Lent, that this is a "grave sin"--in other words, potentially a mortal sin deserving of eternal hell?  Mark, this is the kind of thing that scares the hell out of Lutheran.

:-)  And understandably so.   But, here's the real deal ....   If anyone ever went to hell for eating meat on a Friday during Lent, it was not because they ate meat.   No sensible Catholic believes that (or has ever believed such a thing ...we read 1 Corinth 8:8 too! ;-)).  Rather, if they went to hell, it was because they directly and intentionally disobeyed the Church, which has the authority to bind and loosen.    That's where "grave sin" comes in.  The same would be true of directly and intentionally missing Mass on a Sunday without a good reason.  As Catholics, we believe that we are under authority, and that authority comes from Christ --i.e., "He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me."    So, eating meat on a Friday or deciding to sleep until noon on a Sunday are beside the point.  God doesn't care what we eat or have anything against us sleeping when we're tired.   The point is willful disobedience to the Magisterium --the leadership of the Family, which has decided that the Family is going to communally express its love and devotion to God in a certain way, and woe to the man who breaks that communal unity.   ...that is, willingly and intentionally.  How can such a man truly claim to be in the Church?    See Hebrews 10:23-27.  For example, if a father of a family declares (with his fatherly authority ...which comes from God --Ephes 3:14-15) that all of his children will gather for dinner every Sunday, and one of the children decides he doesn't want to obey --that he doesn't want to meet with the family, can we say that this child is truly part of the family?   Or has he not sinned against the family in a way, by violating its unity and their father's authority to determine how the family will live together???    Again, this is the only "grave sin" involved in eating eat of Friday during Lent.   It is a test of obedience or disobedience and of one's commitment to the unity of the Church.  

Why are the popes and the Western Church so juridical about this?

Well, ...  Our Greek brethren will cited that as an example of "Latin legalism."  :-)   But, they see all of us Westerners (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) that way.    Yet, the answer to your question of course resides in what I said above.   We are not legalistic, but presenting a mystery of obedience.  And once you explain it that way to the Eastern Orthodox, they understand it too.  ;-)  For, there are many things in the Byzantine Rite which also work that way (e.g. how a married priest is forbidden to have relations with his wife on Saturday night before the Sunday Liturgy.   This of course doesn't mean that God is against sex within marriage, but is a reminder to the priest of his eternal calling as a priest and of the original, Apostolic discipline --pre-692 A.D. --in which married priests were required to live continently with their wives).  

The Orthodox keep their fasts even more rigorously--but *not* on pain of sin, certainly not on pain of eternal hell.

But, the EO's also lack any form of united, magisterial authority.   :-)  Ergo, what do they have to really be obedient to?   One bishops says to fast strictly, another makes liberal allowences (oikonomia).   Who sets the tone for the united family??  Who is the father to all??   Thus, the mystery of obedience that we present in Roman Catholicism cannot properly be expressed among the disunited Byzantines.   This is partly a difference in culture, and we must be respectful of that.   But, the fact remains that obedience and legitimate authority are sorely lacking in the Eastern experience, esp, among the EO's, who are seriously disunited and heterodox (save for the basic dogmas of the ancient Ecumenical Councils).  This is the fruit of centuries of isolation from the Roman Magisterium. 

Indeed, Michael ...  Look at Acts 15 again.   I refer to the prohibition against eating meat sacrificed to idols or meat with blood in it.   If a Gentile Christian disobeyed this command and ate meat with blood in it, how do you think the Apostles would handle that?   Clearly, by eating bloody meat, this Gentile Christian would scandalize his Jewish Christian brethren and create division in the Church.  So, would there be no punishment for creating division in the Church?   Would that not be a sin?   Would it not endanger the Gentile Christian's soul?    We think it would.   And, again, it would not be because bloody meat is sinful in and of itself.  ...Nor meat eaten on a Friday.   :-)  Rather, the problem would be disobedience to the Church's decree and the resulting scandal ---the very reason that the Church (in Acts 15) issued the decree.   And so, St. Paul, in 1 Corinth 8:10-13 writes ...

"If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be 'built up' to eat meat sacrificed to idols?  Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died.  When you SIN IN THIS WAY against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are SINNING against Christ.  Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again ..."  

So, while Paul clearly teaches that eating unkosher meat sacrified to an idol can't do a mature Christian any harm, he clearly says that violating the ecclesial mandate of Acts 15 is a SIN ---a SIN that can lead both the violator and his weak brother to "destruction."    Such is the importance and the power of Church authority, for it is the authority of the Holy Spirit Himself (see Acts 15:28).  

Why dangle people over hellfire for the sake of food on a certain day?  Again, to a Lutheran, this smacks of violating Paul's Galatians principle, "For freedom Christ has set us free, therefore let no one put you again under a yoke of bondage" (5:1).

Again, look at what this same Paul says in 1 Corinth 8:10-13, which is in referernce to the Apostolic discipline Acts 15.   Violating a discipline of the Church results in sin; not because the thing itself is necessarily an issue, but because obedience to Christ's Church is necessary.  

Likewise his words to the Colossians and the Romans, "Let no one judge you as to food or drink or sabbath days", etc.

Right.  In terms of the things themselves, but obedience is a separate issue.   Eating bloody meat or not eating bloody meat will not lead to holiness; but obeying the Church can and does.  

It just sounds extreme to bring "grave sin" into the equation when it comes to keeping the fast on a certain day, OR ELSE.

Well, ...  Only if you approach the issue from your native, Protestant perspective, Michael.  But, of course, we do not approach it that way.   To a Protestant, Christianity is primarily a personal thing ---something that effects only Jesus and the Christian.   But, in Catholicism (and also in Eastern Orthodoxy), Christianity is as much a communal thing as it is a personal thing --the mystery of the Body of Christ, and the ministry of leadership that unites that Body on earth.   This, again, is why obedience is important.  

4.  Finally as far as my *theoretical* questions go, I am troubled by the claimed status of Vatican I as an ecumencial council with certainly infallible decrees, not only because it was really a council of the West (Louis Bouyer and others do not give the Western synods the status of ecumenical councils, since the East was not present), but *particularly* because it was not unanimous when it came to the decrees of immediate papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.  As you know, fully one-third of the council fathers voted against the dogmas, in writing, before they left Rome.  To my mind, that makes Vatican I questionable, since the ancient standard for ecumencial councils was that they should be virtually unanimous.  For the Spirit speaks clearly in the Body, not with mixed voice.

Well, ...  A couple things:   I don't know where you're getting the idea that one-third actually dissented from the Council prior to its conclusion.   That is simply not the historical reality.  Rather, all the fathers of Vatican I subscribed to the dogma.   There were no dissenters in the end --not among the Council fathers themselves.   The only Catholics who dissented were the so-called "Old Catholics" of Germany --a group led by German university professors, and that was mostly for political and nationalistic reasons (e.g. Chancelor Otto von Bismark was very threatened by Papal infallibility and what it might imply for the emerging secular German state viz. its independence from its "Holy Roman Empire" heritage. ;-).   

Secondly, the idea that ancient Ecumenical Councils all ended in 100% consensus among the attending bishops is an Eastern Orthodox myth.    In fact, not one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils concluded without anathemas and excommunications hurled at some of its members.  Nicaea deposed and excommunicated Eusebius of Nicomedia and several other supporters of Arius; Constantinople I did the same for all the Arian and semi-Arian bishops in Byzantium; the Council of Ephesus excommunicated Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople and all of his supporters; Chalcedon excommunicated Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria and the entire Egyptian delegation; Constantinople II posthumously excommunicated three attendees of the two previous Ecumenical Councils; Constantinople III excommunicated the attending Patriarch of Antioch; and Nicaea II excommunicated a great many reigning Iconoclast bishops, who were not even permitted to attend the Council.   :-)   So, 100% agreement was never the result of any Ecumenical Council.  There were always winners and losers.    And while Vatican I had its "loosers" (those fathers who disputed Papal Infallibility or questioned the wisdom of dogmatizing it), it did not result in any excommunications, but in full assent on the part of the "opposition" ...as was also the case of most of the ancient Councils, where many bishops gave their assent so as not to be deposed and excommunicated. 

Now, as for seeing Vatican I as a "Council of the West" rather than an Ecumenical Council, there may be some validity in this, given that Pope John Paul made the open invitation to the Eastern Orthodox to jointly explore and re-examine all dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church after the Schism.   In essence, everything is on the table and we are ready to talk.  :-)  That's how confident we are that our doctrine is orthodox.    For, we obviously cannot retract our established dogmas.  But, we can certainly amend and re-define them in order to accomodate Eastern theology and an Eastern point of view.   For, we are now ready to do that as well.  ...But, so far, the EO's want nothing to do with this.  They will not take us up on our standing offer.  :-)

Yet, with all that said, ...  It is somewhat problematic to conclude all the post-Schism councils are just councils of the West, given that our Eastern Catholic brethren have participated in many of them; and given that what historically makes an Ecumenical Council ecumenical is its ratification by the Chair of Peter at Rome.  :-)   Thus, that alone ...whether a council was composed solely of Westerners or not ...still makes the dogmas universally binding.    Yet, the only thing "lacking" (so one could argue) from most of our post-Schism Councils is that all the dogmas were formalized according to Latin theology, which can occassionally be very different from Greek theology, and very alienating to Greeks who do not know how to "translate" it into their own theological systems.   Yet, one can say the very same thing about most of the ancient Ecumenical Councils --that they used Greek theology to address heresies that arose among Greeks, not Latins.  :-)   Indeed, the Roman Church was not even represented at the Council of Constantinole I (or at the Trullian council, which the EO's number as "ecumenical), yet this did not stop us from ratifying Constantinople I as Ecumenical (or addressing and selectively ratifying the canonical legislation of the Trullian council).    So if we Romans can be "Catholic" (universal) enough to "play on their home turf," why can't the Easterners return the favor??   :-) 

Once again, an Ecumenical Council consists of the Bishop of Rome and the bishops united with him issuing a formal decree.    Without the Bishop of Rome's participation and ratification, there is no Ecumenical Council.   And the Byzantines themselves used to believe this.  For example, St. Methodius ("Apostle" to the Slavs) maintained ...

"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existant, for it is he who presides over the Council."  (--Methodius ---N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

Likewise, St. Maximos the Confessor of Constantinople, declares ...

"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun?  Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law.  (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10) 

Thus, it is not the participation of every possible bishop, or even every ranking bishop (e.g. all the patriarchs) that makes a Council ecumenical, but the agreement of the Bishop of Rome's communion --the bishops who hold to the same faith as him and declare something in union with him.   It is simply an accident of history that this became predominately the Western / Latin Church.   For, while it is of course preferred to have the theological input of everyone --of all quarters of the universal Church --that is not necessary for an Ecumenical Council.  If it was, Ephesus could not have been ratified without Constantinople, Chalcedon could not have been ratified without Alexandria, and Constantinople III could not have been ratified without Antioch.  Yet they were, the aforementioned bishops having been deposed and excommunicated by these respective Councils.  

You also write .... 

But I also have a *personal* question or two.  And I present them to you, trusting in your confidence and in your trustworthiness.

Well, I'll do my best, Pastor.  :-)  

First, I was (for less than one year) a confirmed Catholic.  I had been raised a Lutheran, but became very attracted to Catholicism, attended Masses, and was moved by what I experienced.  Following college, in 1986, I went through RCIA (archdiocese of Seattle in the Hunthausen days) and was confirmed.  I had intended to become a priest if God so willed.  After being propositioned by a seminarian, and finding out that my parish priest was attracted to me, and coming into contact with another alcoholic priest, I panicked and wondered if I had made the right choice.  What kind of outfit was this, really???

Indeed.  :-)   But, you go on .....

Then I read Roland Bainton's "Here I Stand" and was reminded of the many Medieval abuses and of the burning of heretics, etc.  This greatly affected me.  Finally, I decided that the Catholic Church wasn't all it claimed to be, and ran back home to Lutheranism with my tail between my legs.

Well, what I would say to that is that Catholics are not everything they claim to be.  The vast majority of us (myself included) are hypocrites who fall tremendously short of what we claim to believe.  We also have some saints, sure; but those are in short supply.  :-)    However, just because Catholics (as a rule) are major screw ups, this in no way implies that the Catholic Church itself is not what it claims to be ---namely, the Spirit-guided Covenant People established by Jesus Christ, the New Israel (per 1 Peter 2:9-10; Gal 6:16, etc.).   So, look at Israel under the Old Covenant.   Look at how God's "Chosen" really behaved.  More often than not, they broke the Commandments, worshipped false gods, and engaged in all kinds of lascivious orgies.  Catholic Christians (as a rule) are mildly better than this.  :-)  But, the comparison still applies.   Yet, just as it was not the behavior of the Jews that made them God's Chosen people, but the fidelity of God to His Covenant, the same is true of Catholics and the Catholic Church today.   One judges Catholicism by what it solemnly professes to believe, not by the shortcomings of Catholics.  For, it is the role of every Christian in the Catholic Church, not to be discouraged by the shortcomings of their brothers (as hard as that might be ...especially when one has priests, God forbid, coming on to you!), but to build up the Body and to win these people over to what they profess to believe in ---something only personal commitment on the part of a Christ-filled individual can do.  As a friend of mine who went back and forth between the Catholic Church and his more-dynamic, native Baptist tradition finally concluded, ...  'Sure, the Catholics are lute warm and have other problems.  But, they have sound doctrine.   The Baptists lack sound doctrine, and there's nothing I can do to change that.  Yet, I can do what I can to change the shortcomings of Catholics.'   This applies to sinful Catholics too, such as the deluded homosexuals you encountered.  

But, you go on ....

After these many years, I now see my own church body (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) in chaos and confusion.  I am part of an orthodox minority in the ELCA, and as I told you previously, am a member of a pastoral oratory dedicated to eventual reunion with Rome.

God hasten the day.   We can use your zealous "muscle."   :-) 

I love my people and do believe God has a call for me in my city and parish as a pastor.

Well, that may be true.  I'm sure we both believe that God works in mysterious ways.  :-)  But he also calls us to perfection.  ....yet sometimes not immediately.  

Yet I do seem to recall Unam Sanctam and the claim of Bonfiace VIII (hardly a devout man by the way) that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.

Well, you're probably aware of this, but neither the OT nor the NT require the person in the religious office to be personally devout or holy in order for that office to be used by God or to be validly authoritative.   We are not Donatists.  :-)    See, for example, how St. John refers to the High Priest Caiaphas --a horrible man, who bribed his way into office and who wanted to murder the Son of God --in John 11:49-52. 

What do you think?  If I am working for moving my Lutherans in the right direction, am I still judged as apostate and under damnation, in Catholic eyes?

Well, your Catholic Confirmation gives you a certain responsibility, which would not be the case if you were just a Lutheran and nothing more (i.e., as a cradle Lutheran who never knew Catholicism, Unam Sanctum would not apply to you).   But, you may not be able to bear the reality and responsibility of your Catholic Confirmation right now.   I think your intentions are good and that God's mercy and His Spirit are certainly upon you.  But, you are also called to perfection and to orthodoxy.    If I were in your situation, I would simply give this to God and tell Him to lead you where He wants you to go.   I think He will handle the rest, provided that you are honest with Him and with yourself.   God doesn't call us to fear, but to peace.   But, that peace must be truthful --that is, founded upon truth.   I would also prayerfully contemplate 2 Tim 1:6.   Whether you now believe this or not, you received a Sacramental Gift via your Catholic Confirmation.  But, it seems that it was never properly "stirred up" or activated ...and is perhaps now expressing itself in a somewhat "illicit" way because it must express itself somehow.   And notice that I say "illict," and not "invalid."   :-)   There is a big difference.  

Yet, as my theoretical questions should show, there is just enough doubt in my conscience that I really am not sure if the Catholic Church is *the* one-and-only-true Church of Christ

Well, if you felt otherwise, I'm sure you would still be a Catholic, right?   So, that is understandable. 

To me, the Orthodox seem to have a great claim as well,

Well, we would say that the Eastern Orthodox are the true Church, but merely a schismatic expression of it.   They are as Catholic as we are.   They have the true priesthood and true Sacraments, etc.   But, their Catholicism is cut off and trapped in a kind of "time capsul." 

and I have to admit that lots of Protestants, particularly evangelicals and charismatics, seem to have a powerful anointing of the Spirit I cannot deny.

Nor do we Catholics.  But, as Jesus said in John 3:8, "the Wind (the Spirit) blows where it wills."     Anyone who calls upon Jesus can experience Him; but this does not mean that all of these are following the Apostolic Faith or in possession of the full truth.   Some feed only on milk and have no knowledge of solid food.   And some are feeding on milk that is not of the best quality.   :-)  

[Example: I was miraculously healed of Crohn's Disease after 18 miserable years through the prayers of a Third-Wave pentecostal preacher named Todd Bentley, who claims to have "the same anointing given to John Knox".  Well!  John Knox wasn't exactly friendly to Rome: yet I cannot deny the amazing miracle that happened to me.  So is Todd a false prophet, or is Rome (ala Knox's claim) off base?  There is, of course, no good way to test this conundrum.]

Well, ....   :-)  Just because Todd possessed the gift of healing (assuming that the healing came through him and not directly to you from God, via your faith), of course doesn't mean that Todd is doctrinally infallible or that he understood John Knox or his historical relation to the Catholic Church.   Many people who are material heretics (as opposed to formal heretics --that is, personally guilty of sin) have Spiritual (charismatic) gifts.   And even some notorious sinners (e.g. Rasputin of Russia) seem to have them, despite their highly-flawed lives.   As we said, God is mysterious; and sometimes He works through the childlike faith of those who are otherwise problematic people.   We Catholics see no contradiction in this.  God can do as He wills and always has His reasons.   

Mark, I initially left the Catholic Church after that brief year because of disgust and shock; now nearly 20 years have passed and I have gone first one way (more liberal) in my thinking, then the other (back again as it were to a conservative and catholic-orthodox mold).  My mind has changed, at least twice!

:-)  That's not unusual.  It's human.   Also, ...  Please, keep in mind that you were in Seattle, which is a notoriously liberal part of the country, I'm sure for Catholicism as well.  Though a native Philadelphian, I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years, and have seen some terrible and disgraceful stuff in that diocese.   So, while the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has its loonies too, there is a big difference between where you happen to live in this country viz. the quality of Catholicism and its faithfulness to Rome, both doctrinally and morally.   

I fulfill my calling in my parish, believing I am indeed the shepherd of my people.  But, particularly in light of an influence towards apostasy in the ELCA, I'm unsure of God's ultimate call to me--as a prophet like Elijah to the apostate northern tribes, or to leave the ELCA and become Roman or Orthodox.

Well, ...   Please just keep in mind that you have a responsibility both to your Lutheran flock AND to yourself and your own soul.  Jesus said it:  "From those who are given much, much will be expected."   He didn't say this to scare someone in your position, but to call you to peace and truth.  He'll lead you there if you ask Him and let Him. 

In short, I have many questions, and am still searching out God's ultimate call for me, confused as I am by conflicting claims for my loyalty.

Well, you certainly have my prayers, Michael.   God keep you and guide you in peace. 

Second.  Yet, if I were to become a Catholic (again), what could be my mission or purpose there?  I have been given to understand that, since I was confirmed a Catholic before my ordination in the Lutheran Church, I am most likely not eligible for the "pastoral provision" whereby one could be a *married* priest.  (If I could even find a bishop willing to take me on as a married priest.)  And I am certainly a married man with three children (ages six, four and two).  Yet, Mark, the priesthood of the pastoral office is my life.  Even as a Lutheran pastor, I try to urge my people to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, in union with Christ whom we meet in the holy Eucharist.  When I stand at the altar, I do so fully intending to re-present Calvary before the Father and impart its benefits to my people.  I am a priest in my bones; what else would I do?

Well, ....  I understand.   But, first of all, as we have to consistenly tell women who aspire to the priesthood, being a priest is not a matter of merely "feeling" it, but being called to it by Almighty God in the context of objective truth.   Now, I am no one to judge whether or not God is calling you to this.  As I'm sure you are aware, I obviously do not believe that you are a priest right now; nor does Lutheran theology (except as far as the common priesthood of the laity goes ...which of course makes me a "priest" as well ;-)).   But, is it possible that you are called to the Apostolic ministerial priesthood, even though you are married??  Sure it is.   As for whether or not Rome would recognize your Lutheran ordination (after you had once been a Catholic) so as to grant the dispensation for Catholic ordination as a married man, ....  I'm not a canon laywer, so I don't know whether that's possible or not.   I'm not sure how Rome would approach that; but my "spidy sense" tells me it's not very likely.  However, you still have several options in front of you (if you did return to communion with Rome): 

Firstly, did you ever give any thought to the permanent Roman Catholic diaconate?  Married men can of course become deacons in the Roman Church, and the diaconate is a participation in the priestly ministry (acting "In Persona Christi SERVITAS" --"In the Person of Christ the Servant" and opposed to "In Persona Christi CAPITAS" --"In the Person of Christ the Head").   So, while a deacon cannot Consecrate the Eucharist or hear Confessions, they can serve on the altar, proclaim the Gospel, preach homilies, administer the Eucharist, Baptize, give benedictions and blessings, and do most of what you do now as a Lutheran minister.   In fact, funny enough, "deacon" and "minister" mean the same thing in Biblical Greek --"servant."   What's more, if you were to outlive you wife (although that's a horrible thing to talk about), you would be able to enter the priesthood as a widowed deacon.    Although, as you may know, you would never be permitted to re-marry.  Once ordained (in both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church), married priests and deacons may never marry or re-marry.   This is the Apostolic Tradition --i.e., a married man may become a priest, but a priest (once ordained) may never marry. 

Another option would be for you to become an Eastern Catholic priest, thus permitting you to remain in communion with Rome.  While most of the Eastern Rites here in the States require their priests to be celibate (so as not to create problems with the Roman Rite), there have been Eastern American bishops who have ordained married men.   Yet, I'm not sure how this would be effected by your previous Catholic Confirmation.  You'd have to, I suppose, start at "square one" and enter the Eastern Catholic priesthood as a layman, rather than entering the Catholic Church as a clergyman with a special dispensation for your marriage (as you would, in the best case scenario, in the Roman Rite).   You would of course have to do the same thing if you entered the Eastern Orthodox Church, which would not only refuse to recognize any pastoral identity for you, but would also re-Confirm and possible even re-Baptize you as well.  :-)  The EO's can be very inflexible that way. 

Hope that helps, Michael.   Again, may our Lord Jesus bless, keep, and increase you always.   Please remember me in your prayers. 

Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
May 4, 2007