www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Celibate Clergy and Latin Catholics

Oh MY, dear Alex,

It's not the same at all! In the former case, it is a defense of tradition / orthodoxy. For the latter (us) it is being disloyal. Because those who have been the most faithful are held to a higher standard -- that is, if we are unwilling to endure even the slightest deviation from the Catholic Way(tm) to the point of martyrdom, we are no better than those who have been dissenters all along. Or so they would have us believe. It's not our standards of loyalty and communion that matter, it's always "theirs" (whoever "they" may be).

Dear RichC,

Well, that is where we'll have to disagree - it's been known to happen among Ukrainians .

Who was it who said that Ukrainians could never really tell the difference between an Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church, but they could tell the difference between a Ukrainian and Non-Ukrainian Church?

In our history in North America, I think this applies well.

And 90% of those in the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches here are descended from Eastern Catholic converts.

Disloyalty to Rome wasn't the issue for them then. Disloyalty to the Ukrainian church and her traditions was - coupled with the feeling that the West was discriminating etc.

And the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches regularly get defectors from our Church who really don't see the fundamental difference but see in Orthodoxy the "best" of Kyivan Christianity.

In addition, the SSPX is very much like a "Western Orthodox" Church even though it has nothing to do with historic Orthodoxy.

It is, after all, in schism from the Catholic Church, or an Orthodox might say, in schism from its own Patriarchate.

One could also make the case that the martyrs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church died not only for the Catholic faith, but also for the Ukrainian Catholic Church that was being crushed by its historic national enemy.

During my time working in the Patriarchal movement, I got a strong sense that even the older Ukrainians loyal to Sheptytsky and Slipyj and all that they stood for, were upset with Rome and there was a strong movement within it to leave Rome, even going so far as trying to convince Slipyj to get out of Rome, which he declined to do.

Alex

Dear Thomas,

Yes, indeed, with fewer priests in the Catholic Church to go around, the married Episcopal converts have little time for their families, to be sure!

The Latin Church in general is going through a period of crisis with respect to her priests, leaving to one side the scandal issue.

The fact is that Catholic bookstores are filled with texts for EEM's and other "ministers" who are increasingly called upon to perform leadership functions in place of priests.

This is a pastoral problem and it will get worse, not better.

I'm not saying that married priests are the answer. I'm saying they are part of the answer.

As an example, there is a press release on EWTN about a diocese in Mexico that has stopped ordaining married deacons among the Indian tribe there. The reason being is that so many deacons were being ordained, (to put a "Native face" on the Church) but without (celibate) priests.

The fear was that, according to sources, people might get the impression that a new "clerical class" was being created. In other words, with so many married deacons and no celibate priest . . . the picture is clear.

The idea that a married priesthood will not lead to greater number in the Latin priestly ranks is simply false. We cannot compare other, smaller Churches to the Latin Church in this respect either. There are many married deacons who would opt to become married Latin priests and many others who would choose to become a priest if they could marry.

And if Rome could somehow receive back those thousands who have left because they could not live a life of dishonesty without a wife, then, all around, there would be no vocations crisis.

The problem here is that married Latin laity and bishops have little understanding for the life and pressures faced by the parish priest who may not be called to living a celibate life.

These should perhaps reexamine their own attitudes toward marriage and sexuality in the light of the New Testament and authentic Catholic teaching about male-female relationships.

I've had the privilege of knowing many Latin Catholics and I interact with many daily. I have yet to hear even one decry married priests for the Latin Church, especially in the face of the current scandals - their words, not mine.

In addition, I think it is rather patronizing to see married priests as "all right for the Byzantines" as if it is a kind of "giving in" to human weakness among "those guys" in the East, ("if they must, they must . . .").

The theology of the married priest, and yes, there is one, sees the priest as the assistant of the Bishop, who is taken from among men, either married or celibate, but never the latter exclusively, for this would create a special clerical class, as mentioned above, that is reserved to the Bishop alone.

But in the early Church, Bishops were the "husband of one wife" as well.

Alex

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

No, no, Alex, we don't disagree at all. I'm saying that as Catholics, it doesn't matter at all what the issues are for us, what the motivation is. Because the only criterion of faithfulness, loyalty, unity and communion, is the Latins' criterion. As our esteemed posters are demonstrating all too well every time they say to us that "YOU DON'T LOVE THE POPE ENOUGH." All the martyrdom and decades in the catacombs don't mean a thing unless we support the Latin way for every iota of theologoumenon and ecclesiastical discipline.

As I've been saying in jest for many years, but am starting to believe, even if the entire Latin Church ends the discipline of priestly celibacy, our Churches in North America will cling to it because it is their criterion of being "Catholic."

+JMJ+

Dear Alex:

I feel you are a very learned and wise man. Nevertheless, you are wrong in this matter.

In the Latin Rite, the vocation to marriage and the vocation to the priesthood do not overlap.

The Latin Rite does not impose clerical celibacy on anyone. Those who do not have the gift of apostolic celibacy are told to marry and raise children who can be priests.

For the Latin Rite to have a married state among the majority of our priests would by nature require us to throw out just about every bit of the Sacrament al theology that has built up over the last 1,500+ years.

As for the socalled vocations crises, I propose to you it does not exist in the Latin Rite. Don't get me wrong, there is a crisis in the Latin Rite. That crisis is a lack of adherence to traditional catholic practices. The use of female altar servers at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass drives away many young men.

The use of Extroidinary Eucharistic Ministers at Mass (EEM's are great to take the Holy Eucharist to the sick and the shutins. Quite simply a Priest is too busy to do this as well.) Anyway, the use of EEM's at Mass is a very bad thing. It makes young men think they can have the comforts of a wife and still administer the Eucharist and do all the things a Priest can do.

If the Latin Rite wants more priests, give us back our traditions.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP uses traditional Latin Mass) has seminarians sleeping in broom closets and turns away several hundred applicants a year. The legion of Christ has over 500 American Seminarians alone and worldwide as 50 seminarians to every one of their priests. they are growing by leaps and bounds. There are scores of other traditional (in communion with Rome) and conservative orders that are overflowing with priests and there are two dioceses I am personally aquinted with in this country that are running out of places to put the priests. These two dioceses use male altar servers, communion at a rail, gregorain Chant, etc. There is no vocations shortage, there is a catholicism shortage.

Joe Zollars

Joe,

Get runnin', buddy--there are 100 married Latin priests in the US of A--one who lives here in Raleigh!!!

I'm actually just joking with you. I know it ticks me off when Latins tell us no married priests, so it must tick you off when us Easterns tell Latins "why not?" I think a big aspect of the problem is not married Latin priests per se, but rather what the liberals* would do with them--promote their agenda.

In Christ,

anastasios

(*Note to all: I consider myself moderate and as you know, am quite liberal on the issue of women deacons, so please don't go away thinking I'm anti-liberal).

Dear friends in Christ,

I am actually in support of married bishops--this is becuase being the staunch rigorist traditionalist that I am, I cannot stand how the Trullo Council exercised economia to exclude married men from the episcopacy and to allow married men to divorce their wives on pretext of piety--it was economia becuase both of these propositions had earlier been condemned by the Apostolic Canons. So all-celibate episcopacy is a liberal use of economia, and all of us rigorists should promptly denounce it!!! ;-)

If you want to see this argument in print, read "Vested in Grace: Priesthood and Marriage in the Christian East." by Fr. Joseph Allen. Funny thing is is that he addresses that Latin priest who wrote the celibacy is dogma book by Ignatius Press in one footnote: (paraphrased) "his work is not based in scholarly reality."

In Christ,

anastasios, "The traditionalist radical": "Wear traditional priestly garments (no Roman collar!), keep the full fast if possible, no 'eucharistic ministers', promote monasticism, ordain women deacons and married men bishops!" What a contradiction! ;-)

Dear Joe,

I said that I agree with you here and I will reiterate that I believe you have your finger on the crux of the problem.

As Aquinas pointed out, celibacy is a vocation that must be nurtured by prayer, vigils, fasting and sacrifice.

The traditional Catholic values that support such a way of life will doubtless lead to many vocations to the Priesthood and in the celibate state. Of that I have no doubt and Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff said as much in his analysis.

Many Latin Catholics I know prefer the Tridentine Rite for many different (all good) reasons. There are others who are Novus Ordo but very traditional in its observance as well.

If the Latin Church wishes not to have Latin married priests, then it will do so without asking people like me for permission to continue in this vein!

And I want to see what you want to see in the celibate Priest and priestly vocation.

But to say that the Latin Church doesn't impose clerical celibacy since those who want to get married are invited to leave the seminary is to really say that clerical celibacy IS in fact imposed.

And the theology of priestly celibacy has indeed developed - to the point where the Latin Church really would wish to impose it on the Eastern Churches and has been doing so as much as possible, even though we're pushing back.

It is perhaps too much for anyone to hope for a change in this discipline in the West and certainly the West has the "Rite" to do as it sees fit.

What we in the East hope for is a better appreciation of the theology of the married priesthood by the West.

There is almost a certain nervousness on the part of the Vatican to do so, as if to do so will open the flood-gates for the married priests.

The recent action to ban any more (married) diaconal ordinations in an area of Mexico among Native people there demonstrates this nervousness.

And the great vocations to the Tridentine Rite could also be an outpouring of support for the traditional heritage of the Latin Church, the "good old days" that many remember and wish them back.

And I don't argue with that either.

Again, coming from a Catholic tradition with many married priests, having a celibate priest is indeed "odd" for us, just as having a married priest would be "odd" for you.

But our married Catholic priests suffered tremendous discrimination against them by Latin bishops who viewed them with great disdain and suspicion.

Again, to say, as some have said, that "we do it this way, you do it that way, everone's happy" is simply not true to the historical reality of the relationship between our Churches on this issue.

And I also think that many more lay Latin Catholics are open to the idea of a married priesthood, especially in reaction to the scandals.

We can talk until we're blue in the face about the intellectual aspects of this issue.

It makes no difference to what the average lay Catholic family in the street now feels and thinks about the matter.

But time will tell and the Church is in the hands of the Spirit, the same Spirit Who said of the marital bed that it is "undefiled."

In the final analysis, the Spirit beckons, and does not impose.

But that is my view, and I have too many married priests in my family to think otherwise, so please understand my inability to think properly and as one should on the subject of married priests!

Forgive me my invincible ignorance!

Alex

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

Correct me if I'm wrong. But didn't a large part of that population that fled the Latin Priesthood to go get married after their vow of celibacy, also join the ranks of the Latin Priestrhood in bulk during the time of the Vietnam War? And then leave the Priesthood for marriage a short time after the war was over?

Now I don't mean to hold people to their past failings (I wouldn't want to be held to my past failings), or even to suggest that I know what was in the heart of every man. But the Priesthood should not be a place to sheild people from their personal duties to their countries and families. And while I am no better then any of these people that may of had the intentions of dodging the draft or useing the Priesthood for other then noble reasons, I see no reason the heirarchy of the Latin Church need call these people back inside their Priestly ranks for purposes of convience. It would just add further shame onto the Priesthood of the current crisis. -- Just my 2cents.

Also I think Latins attitudes toward the Eastern Priesthood i.e. it being alright for the Easterners but not for us. Stems more from a Latin militan sort of outlook opposed to you Easterners more - take it easy kind of ways.

I don't expect the Latin militant identity is going to go away any time soon. So I expect celibacy will soldier on in the fraternity of St. Peter's men.

Anastasios, I don't give a barflying Botswanan bovine's broken barstool what opinions you hold on an avalanche of trite issues....but if you only so much as hint to an ounce of tolerance for a beardless priest, I'll have the Saudi matawas charge at you with scimitars.

As for the revival of the deaconess in the Eastern Church, I wouldn't consider it a liberal stance. It is part of our heritage and a legitimate position of service to the Church. Cetirus paribus, I would be happy to see it resurrected. I don't think it is prudent at present due to the spinned message that lunatics amongst the Latins would see in it, and given the activism for a female presbyterate today.

As for whether it would serve any useful, practical purpose in our Churches at this time, I cannot say. The suggestion on married bishops: I am not enthusiastic about it beyond the perimeters of the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches.

No Roman collar: yes, PLEASE. Also, lose the "Saturday Mass", the truncated Liturgies, and get rid of the "orders". Send the monks back into the desert, like the Copts have the good sense to do! No, you fit the profile of a typical archtraditionalist (those guys scare me ) ....except for your affinity with English Liturgies, non ethnic Churches, and let's face it, you like cleanshaven priests, don't you......and you don't know how to prepare proper Slavic, Greek, or Arabic cuisine, I reckon. You probably eat Bavarian frankfurters for Pascha!

Oi.



In IC XC
Samer

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

Dear Maximus,

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the Vietnam issue you raise at all.

There are thousands of Roman priests who have left to get married and are organized in a 'synod' of their own in the U.S. and in Europe.

I've met some members, but otherwise don't know much about them, other than what I read in the papers of course!

And for secular priests, it isn't a "vow" of celibacy but a promise (am I right?).

And if it's a promise, well you know what they say about promises . . .

God bless,

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SamB:
[QB]

Anastasios, I don't give a barflying Botswanan bovine's broken barstool what opinions you hold on an avalanche of trite issues....but if you only so much as hint to an ounce of tolerance for a beardless priest, I'll have the Saudi matawas charge at you with scimitars.

>>>ha ha! I was joking by the way, listing my opinions in that fashion--I'm not important enough for anyone to give a hoot!

By the way, I don't like the look of a beardless priest! I have a beard by the way...!

>>>As for whether it would serve any useful, practical purpose in our Churches at this time, I cannot say. The suggestion on married bishops: I am not enthusiastic about it beyond the perimeters of the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches.

Metropolitan Anthony out in San Francisco is a proponent of married bishops, as is Met. Phillip. I was against it, until I read Fr. Joseph Allen (Antiochian Orthodox)'s book _Vested in Grace_ which has a LOT of documentation.

>>>No Roman collar: yes, PLEASE. Also, lose the "Saturday Mass", the truncated Liturgies, and get rid of the "orders". Send the monks back into the desert, like the Copts have the good sense to do!

YEAH!

>>>No, you fit the profile of a typical archtraditionalist (those guys scare me ) ....except for your affinity with English Liturgies, non ethnic Churches, and let's face it, you like cleanshaven priests, don't you......

1) I love English liturgies because I speak English!!! But I also love Greek and Arabic ones! In fact, I don't like the way the Antiochians kicked out all the Arabic in all their "new" parishes! I like what Holy Transiguration in McLean VA does: mostly English, but with substantial Arabic, some Greek, etc. I would like to see parts that repeat, such as the Cherubic hymn, be done in both.

2) I love ethnics--just not a "we ethnics are it, go away convert" attitude. If I ever became a Melkite priest (my preference lies there) I would learn Arabic fluently. I've been trying to learn Arabic for 4 years but can never find anyone with patience to work with me! If I became Orthodox, I would probably become Greek Orthodox becuase I don't like convert wackoness. And I'm a convert!

>>>and you don't know how to prepare proper Slavic, Greek, or Arabic cuisine, I reckon.

Ok, now although I know you're joking around, you are presuming a little too much. My fiancee Michaela is Slovak (and I speak Slovak intermediately), and we eat the real stuff. I am learning how to cook it, too. And my priest, who is not "ethnic" knows how to make excellent pieroghi, halushki, etc.! We are willing to learn!

>>>You probably eat Bavarian frankfurters for Pascha!

WRONG! Freshly made sausage--casing and all!

In Christ,

anastasios the multi-cultured

(I speak Hindi intermediately too, by the way, and have been to India twice).

Dear RichC,

Sorry to have misunderstood you, Big Guy - something that also happens among Ukrainians .

My uncle of revered memory used to comment that Ukrainians seemed to be more "papal" than the Pope himself.

I had a married priest friend who caught on with the politics in his parish and applied them with great success.

While speaking to the parish priest, trained in Rome (the guy who believes the Angelus and Stations of the Cross are Eastern ), my friend told him that he only wants to "obey Rome in all things."

There was nothing the parish priest would refuse him, after that.

Following this, another friend wanted a favour from the same priest.

I gave him a Vatican flag pin to wear on the day he went to see him.

Some people can be really nice if you just know how to approach them . . .

And it's great some Ukrainians are so loyal.

Too bad they can't be as loyal to their historic traditions as well.

Alex

Hmm, I don't know I thought all Priest took vows of celibacy? Never heard of the promise.

Getting on to another point. I'm going to sound very hateful of women here. But that's not where it is coming from, it is an honest opinion of mine that derives from experience and observation, the same way I have an opinion about men primarily going after women for sex and useing them just for sex all to often. Anyways on to what I'm going to say -- It is my feeling that a good part of the women (not all) involved in the movement for an end for Priestly celibacy, derive their intention from a disdain that their exist a group of men outside their reach of manipulation by sexual flurtation, or sex in the bedroom. Yes I do believe by-in-large women like to manipulate men. Didn't always believe this but an older man once told me this, and as I have took greater observation and have grown older, I have come to believe this also. But as I said their are less then flatering things I would say about us men too.

By the way I am still very much maniputeable by the sway her hips and her femenin mannerisms. Only thing now is I'm aware of when it's being done... or actually - has been done.

Dear Maximus,

When it comes to these matters, by your own admission, I am a better man than you . How, I don't know . . .

Yes, vows are what monks do, whereas secular priests make promises. If there is any lurking Latin out there with a lecture on this legal labyrinth, I would love to learn a lesson pertaining to the law.

What you say could also go the other route.

I mean, the idea that a celibate priest "belongs" to everyone in the parish, and the idea that a married priest somehow is no longer "public property" - spiritually that is!

What were you thinking about?

Sorry to have asked . . .

God bless!

Alex