www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Particular Law Promulgated

On June 29, 1999 the Council of Hierarchs of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh promulgated Particular Law. It becomes effective on October 1, 1999.

The official text of the document is available on this website from links on the Main Page , Byzantine News & Newslinks or directly at Particular Law .

�2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.

WHAT ARE THESE SPECIAL NORMS ISSUED BY THE APOSTOLIC SEE? ARE THEY PUBLISHED? NOT TOO CLEAR.

ELIAS


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 09-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 09-30-1999).]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Wait a minute. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand it, but what exactly does Canon 758 sec.3 really mean? Are we to begin ordaining married men or not? What the hell are the "special norms issued by the Apostolic See"? Does this mean permission from Rome is required before we ordain a married man deserving of ordination?

What happened to the original text that stated emphatically that marriage is not an impediment to becoming a presbyter?

If I am misinterpeting this document, please, someone, tell me what it really means.

If my reading is correct, I can only say that this is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sickened by it. Perhaps it is time I leave this Church -- I have mostly stuck around in the hope that certain errors (definition of papacy and married clergy, in particular) would be corrected. Doesn't look like it's ever going to happen.

But perhaps the singular error of the Orthodox Church -- refusing to accept the primacy of Rome that underlies the universality of the Church -- is far less grievous than Rome's constant and seemingly underhanded attempt to thwart our Eastern Christian heritage. And far less maddening than our leadership's inability to defend us.

I am throroughly disgusted. Elias has hit the nail on the head -- I only wish he hadn't.

We are PATHETIC. God help us.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

I believe that the reference to the norms established by Rome is a reference to the ban. This is a 'special norm' because the norm, under the code of canon law, is for both a celibate and a non-celibate clergy in the Eastern Churches. The Vatican has a 'special norm' in effect for the Americas whereby there may not, as a general matter, be ordained married men to the priesthood of the Eastern Churches in these areas without the prior approval of Rome. This Particular Law is a reiteration of this existing 'ban' (for which there were always available special dispensations on application to Rome).

So, it's 'plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose' for we Eastern Catholics in the USA. I sure hope you Orthodox are laughing loudly. Thanks, Rome.

Orientale

I think it is now a waste of time going all the way to Pittsburgh to celebrate 75 years of our uniate church which still acts as a subsidiary of Corporate Rome. 75 years of what? More commissions? More meetings? More yada yada. I think I will stay home and wash the car on October 3.

Obviously, our heirarchs took three years of studying how to remain the subserviant bishops they are. Shame on them!!!

Special Norms? Why should the right of our bishops to ordain married men be based on "Special Norms?" Is this in line with the Union of Uzhorod? I don't think so. What a sham. So much for being 'sui juris.'

We are all schismatics! Especially Orthodox wannabees.

Elias

Dear friends,

First of all, my personal opinion is that it would be pastorally best for the Byzantine Metropolia to reintroduce married priests one way or another.

But I would like to raise several propositions for your learned consideration:

1. Is the strident demand for the restoration of married priests itself a "Latinization"? Just as Latins uncomfortable with the eastern church object to its most distinctive features (such as married priests) Latins (or "former Latins") who are intrigued with the eastern church are those most insistent for the restoration of the practice. It is a discipline after all, not a doctrinal or theological matter.

2. It is certainly part of Western thought to view matters exclusively or primarily in the sense of "negative rights" ( the rights of individual autonomy against the demands of an authority). The Catholic Church and the Christian East have historically expressed their reservation about rights only in the sense of negative rights. Just as socially people have "positive rights" as well (the right to food, housing, medical care, etc.) people in the Church have positive rights.

The Latinized or (better Western) viewpoint seems to be for the right of an individual to present himself as a candidate for ordination. A more proper (I think) Catholic and Byzantine view would be the right of the community to have the traditional mixture of a married and monastic clergy. The Church should take positive action to bring that about. But (with no objection from the Byzantine Forum Online)the Byzantine Metropolia (that means all of us, not just the bishops) have failed to create a vibrant, authentic monastic presence in the USA as much as they have failed to create a presence of married clergy.

If you speak to Byzantine schoolchildren, you will find that many, though not all, have some concept of the fact that we have married priests elsewhere even if they have never known one. The concept is not too challenging for them. If you then ask about monastics, they are much more fuzzy. They are likely to have been no more exposed to monks than married priests and will confuse monks with celibate eparchial priests or members of religious orders of the active apostolate.

The Church should be working to restore a presence of both married and monastic priests. Not one without the other.

3. How do we do this? Might the solution be to guide young men to consider a monastic vocation and use the dispensation to ordain mature, married men to the priesthood? None of us know about liberally the dispensation will be applied. A wait and see is warranted.

4. Lastly, let me say I have my own opinions as to the limits of relaxing the special norms. In the unlikely event the proper authorities would ask my opinion, I would suggest married persons who transferred from the Latin to the Ruthenian Church not be considered as candidates for the priesthood.

Kurt

While I am a little disappointed that the full reclamation of a married priesthood is not included in the new law, I think a massive negative reaction is unwise.

The law doesn't state that married men can't be ordained to the priesthood, only that a dispensation from Rome needs to be granted. While this is not exactly what we were hoping for, we should examine the situation. The same condition applies for the Latins concerning convert Episcopal priests, and there are 100 or so of these in America. It appears that Rome is not to stingy with the dispensations.

Also, there is nothing stopping a revision of this law in the future when the seminary and Metropolia are prepared to handle married candidates. I think this has a lot more to do with the law than everyone here is considering. Until then, I think it is wise to handle things on an individual basis, even if Rome has to give a dispensation.

It took four years to put the diaconal program together, give the bishops time. We are reclaiming our heritage, just slower than most of us would like.

Lance Weakland

I guess we will just have to wait and see if "dispensation" is a rubber-stamping or a multiple hoop-jumping. Lance has some good points, but I certainly understand everyone's frustration. Maybe we are just too American... wanting everything and wanting it NOW.

Rick,

It has nothing to do with being American. Why should it even be an issue of having married priests NOW when it is our tradition in the FIRST PLACE! The bishops mentioned the Union of Uzhorod. Wasn't a married priesthood a condition of union which Rome agreed to? Its not getting married priests now but getting back married priests after our rights have been conviscated.

Elias

Hey y'all,

In addition to the flap about married priests, and "lay eucharistic ministers" did anybody notice that we seem to have dispensed with several currently (for the next 6.5 hours) "obligatory" or at least Solemn holy days?

Or am I missing something?

Is This a Decree For Year 2000 or The Dark Ages? Am I to Believe That All Infants To Be Baptized And Receiving The Eucharist In The Eastern Church Are To Be MALES ONLY?? Have The Bishops Not Heard About Being Politically And Gender Correct?? And What About Girls As Altar Servers-----I Know of Several Byzantine Catholic Parishes That Welcome Them!!

"Canon 327 �1. MEN who are properly prepared can be ordained to the offices of acolyte, lector cantor and subdeacon, who are minor clerics."

WOW! You mean there is a place in Catholicdom where Sarah does not have to help Abraham place Issac on the altar of sacrifice; where we do not ask Our Lady of Sorrows to help pound in the nails?

You guys got it made! I am green with envy!

Wendy

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Kurt: This has nothing to do with the zealotry of former Latins. I am a cradle Byzantine, my wife is a cradle Byzantine, the rest of my immediate family are cradle Byzantines, and we are so frustrated, angry, disappointed, and -- worst of all -- saddened that we are about to leave this Church.

The fact is, it's not really just a "discipline" matter. It goes to the heart of how we are to understand Roman primacy. And, ecclesiology -- at least for us in the East -- has much to do with our understanding of God and his relationship to the world. Furthermore, for the West married clergy is a doctrinal concern (they seem to read only Paul's recommendation that one not marry, ignoring his insistence on the holiness of marriage -- see 1 Cor 7): being married is somehow seen as meaning that you are less of a priest. Without saying so explicitly, the Roman Church implies the illegitimacy of married priests.

Your reference to negative rights and positive rights is correct. I don't view married clergy in the Byzantine Catholic Church as a matter of our autonomy: we are autonomous, but that's not the point. Our "positive right" to a capable clergy is, in part, being denied. I have personally spoken with a few young men who seemed to have a priestly vocation. In the end, however, it was celibacy that turned them away.

Yes, we should seek to create a better community. I think that is what all of us in this forum want. But do you really believe that that is possible under the present circumstances? The Roman Church (of which we are really just a subsidiary) works on a model of top-down power, not bottom-up authority. This ecclesiological model has the practical effect of denying real community. That is Rome's chief sin.

Relaxing the special norms? If this were really to happen, shouldn't the original form of our particular law -- "marriage is no longer an impediment to holy orders" -- have been accepted and promulgated? That is truly a relaxation of Cum Data Fuerit and Ea Semper. Don't kid yourself; nothing has changed and it never will.

A wait and see attitude? Isn't that what we've been doing for the last twenty years? NO -- that's not good enough any longer. If anything is going to happen, the people -- the laity, the ones who really need good priests and not just the social rejects we often end up with, who are ordained for the simple reason that they accept celibacy as opposed to positively undertaking the monastic life -- the people need to take positive steps. We need to make our bishops resign; we need to make clear to the Eastern Congregation that we are not happy with the present clergy and that we deserve -- for the sake of our spiritual health -- good, intelligent, caring priests, married or not. We don't want priests who just want power or wish to join an exclusive club.

I am someone who had to make a choice some time ago -- do I want to share my life with someone, do I want and need someone (and, of course, not just anyone) to help me in my journey towards True Life? Or do I want to serve God's people as a presbyter, do I want to help others in their journey? Why should I have been forced into such a choice? Yes, I can still do the latter -- but hardly with the effectiveness I would otherwise possess had I attended seminary. I don't want my sons (God-willing) to have to face the same choice. There is too much unecessary spiritual pain involved.

Lance: You are wrong: the law does prohibit married men from receiving holy orders. The "special norms" of the Apostolic See are contained within Cum Data Fuerit and Ea Semper -- the decretals that put an end to married clergy in the Eastern Catholic Church in the Americas.

Oh, yes -- let's wait for it to be revised! Let's wait for the Church to prepare for married clergy! Come on -- those arguments about practicality are nonsense. The people want a married clergy, they realize it is their tradition. If they need to, they will provide for it. Raise the bar, and people will reach it; or do you, like our bishops and all others who peddle this idiotic argument, have such little confidence in the goodness of people?

It's not a question of going slower -- it's a question of GOING BACKWARD. We are not a Catholic Church sui iuris, as we have all grown very fond of pointing out to our Orthodox brethren. No, we are part of the Roman Catholic Church, subject to the will and whim of the Pope and the College of Cardinals. This proves it. Light from the East? Seems to me Rome controls the switch.

Rick: Please... this has nothing to do with being American. I've wanted this since I was twelve, and I've been willing to wait. Others have been waiting for 60 years. If anything, we've been too patient. Suffering may be redemptive, but this is just too much -- mostly because it's unnecessary suffering.

To all others who advised a "wait-and-see" attitude some months ago: Don't be embarrassed -- it's just the way it is and will always be. Your faith is admirable. I'm just sorry you have been so disappointed.

Andrew, Judson, and the rest must go the way of Spyridon! Let's finally learn something from the Greeks.

If anyone is looking for a real Eastern Church, you can learn all about it at www.orthodoxinfo.com. [orthodoxinfo.com.]

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

[This message has been edited by theophilos (edited 10-01-1999).]

This is simply the reality of the role of the Pope as the universal pastor. The Pope can giveth and the Pope can taketh away. There is no such thing as autonomy as the role of the Pope is currently interpretted in the West. (Which more importantly is how the Pope sees himself.) As someone in the Orthodox camp, there is nothing to take joy or find humor in this as someone previously suggested. This is serious stuff of the highest order.

Alot of lay Orthodox and clergy look at how Rome handles relations with Byzantine Catholics to see how Rome's attitudes towards others are flowing. Regardless of how liberal Rome is with dispensations, it is still Rome's call. I can hardly think of a more damaging development.

BYZANTINE SUI JURIS CHURCH. What is it?

1. The part of the Roman Catholic CHURCH which practices some aspects of the Byzantine RITE and does Mass differently.
2. A subsidiary of Rome which is 100% owned by the Pope.
3. A bad example of the Spirit of Vatican II.
4. Another failure in light of the Union of Uzhorod; How dare our bishops compare our church mess to the Unia of Uzhorod.
5. A church which changes particular laws found in a code which was written by Rome in the first place.
6. A bunch of Orthodox wannabees; where Roman Catholic men can dress up like Eastern bishops and priests.
7. Rome's best example of lip-service to our Orthodox Sister Churches.
8. 75 years of heartbreaks and heartburn.
9. Where Latinizations continue to exist at the most critical areas of church life.
10. An alternative for those Orthodox who are tired of watching Comedy Central.
11. Inspiration and material for more Dilbert cartoons.
12. A very sad and depressing history.

Did I miss anything? Or should we stop pretending and go Roman Catholic and leave this hybrid behind? It is too tiring trying to defend anymore.


Elias

PS: Why aren't our 'Fransican' monks defending us?