www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Why married priests won't solve the vocation shortage

//It is not to be restored because it will solve a crisis, or fill the seminary, or prove anything to anyone.

It is simply the fact that married priesthood is the tradition of the eastern Churches, and it should be the norm, because it is the tradition. It is not the better thing to do. It is the right thing to do, because it is the TRADITION.//

Thank you. BTW, how full are our Eastern Catholic seminaries in Europe?

This topic once came up when I was attending seminary. I asked about 'free choice' in marriage and celibacy in ministry. The idea of 'freedom' or 'free choice' was simple: either choose freely to accept mandated celibacy or forget the priesthood tract. We weren't qutie breathing on two lungs back then ... nor do I think we are today. Just keep track of who is holding the breathing tube. Then take out a life insurance policy.

Joe

We can engage in dialogue forever as to wheter or not married priests will solve the priest shortage.
Married priests are and will continue to be a part of the Byzantine experience, so the question as to whether we should have married priests or not is moot.
Besides maybe a priest shortage we have an even bigger problem
WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE?
In the small rural churches we only have sometimes 100 or so parishoners, and they are aging.
Looking around, we've got 25-30 years until the generation above me gets old.
When they are gone, our rural parishes may be gone.
There aren't many people my age, people pushing 30.
So, when we are all that is left, well, I don't know how 10 people can give $50,000 plus a year to run a small parish.

Getting people in the pews is what we need to concentrate on, at least here in the northeast/mid-Atlantic, not sure about the rest of the country.

I would word it differently but I essentially agree with you. We now have two married priests and I'm sure more are coming. What we need is more people in Church, but not in the pews. Just more people in Church. Eliminate most of the pews.

Combine Churches so priests can be free to be sent to areas of greater need. Get more people into Church and the problems will dissolve.

How do we solve the one impediment to growth. That's easy. The Scriptures give us the answer. The great impediment to growth is fear, as Father has already writtine. The one thing that will eliminate fear, as the Scriptures say, it Perfect Love.

Without Theosis we can just "turn out the lights, for the party's over." With perfect love we will grow and grow rapidly.

Dan L

Dan,
I agree about combining some parishes. I am not going to give any examples, leave it at I can give a great one.
Pews, why? Firewood my brother, firewood. Leave a few around the sides for those who do not want to stand.
I can say I know a few priests that would love more than anything to toss the pews out for a bon fire, but admit freely they can't, age of people.
During Presanctified I have sat a little behind people so I can stand when we are singing certain parts.... why sit when chanting psalms?
Also, not to get in the pew thing, but not having pews would let us do our movin' and groovin' more freely.
People is what we need.
Some younger people to motivate those who have become used to the same coffee hour after what they still call Mass for 50 years. We need young folks to spearhead new ideas (conforming to church teachings and so forth) and we need people with the energy to take these projects under their wings. We need the wise older folks to guide us younger folks and we all need to work together to build up our churches.

The problem I am seeing is the lack of new and young blood. It isn't there in great numbers, we need that. who is going to fill the church when our elders leave us for their Eternal Home?

Another thing is several Byzantine Catholic Churches I know of are across the street from Roman Catholic Churches. Guess what, many Romans I know that go to these churches have NEVER SET FOOT in the Byzantine Catholic Church that is less than 40 feet away!!!!
I've told people they should go to a Divine Liturgy across the street, I tell them they are a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church just as much as they are a member of the Roman Catholic Church across the street (well not parishoners, but we are all Catholics).

No, and no.

They are full. They limit the number of seminarians they accept each year.

1. They can only afford to feed and house a limited number.
2. The seminarians (or their families) cannot afford to pay for anything near the cost of their education, so it is an expense paid by the diocese. And the diocese's resources are limited. So, the number of seminarians is limited.
3. There are only so many parishes in the diocese, and is it really fair to accept a seminarian, educate and ordain him, when there is no chance there will be a parish free in the near or distant future, where he can earn a living at the 'business' of being a priest. A poor church in a poor country can only support a finite number of priests.

Nicholas,

Thank you, but I would like thirdpew to answer that question.

Joe

Humm, let's see.
The question is:
Is the priesthood of Jesus Christ, who, BTW was celibate, (Davinci notwithstanding) defined by either celibacy or married clergy?
I say neither! It's defined/implied by none other that Jesus Christ Himself.

Let's look at the "Call" of the first Apostles.
As Scripture has it, Jesus called them, and, if I'm not mistaken, they left their nets, and sic. their families and followed Him.

Thankfully no mention is made if their families tagged along, and we don't know what happened to their wives or family members, nor their reactions to to what would be defined today as desertion.

They "dropped their nets" (their former lives)and followed Jesus, period.

Nowhere do I get the sense that Jesus said: "Pack up your bags, bring the wives and kids, and come along."

Now does this mean that priests could not be married.
Or does this mean that Jesus "implied" by His command for His Apostles to drop every worldly care and norm and follow him? That whoever He called to be His Apostle (not deciple, which is different), they "had" to leave all, (including family and wives) and followed Him?

Somewhere, me thinks, Jesus expected to have his "chosen ones" totally committed to Him, not wives, or children, for the work they were to do.

Maybe the analogy however limp has merit here. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. You will either hate one or despise the other.

You either love God totally and comletely and be a "Father of Souls" Oche Duchovni", or you have a wife and children and be a father to them, just as noble a vocation come to think of it.

But mixing both, maybe needs to be looked at from Jesus' point of view, not ours, which as St. Paul said: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:14)

But that's just my view from the third pew.

//I say neither! It's defined/implied by none other that Jesus Christ Himself.//

But Jesus was also God-man, divine. We are not, but are called to participate in His divine nature.

//Let's look at the "Call" of the first Apostles. As Scripture has it, Jesus called them, and, if I'm not mistaken, they left their nets, and sic. their families and followed Him. Thankfully no mention is made if their families tagged along, and we don't know what happened to their wives or family members,//

Paul, who considered himself one of them, also begs the question of having the right to bring along a wife. The New American Bible, published by the Catholic bishops, has this to say:

�Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense against those who would pass judgment on me is this. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?� (1 Corinthians 9:4).

I wish not to get into polemics, my friend, since we�ve had both married priests in both Eastern and Western traditions. You simply fail to note how Rome has allowed them in their own churches. Do you care to follow-up with an answer to that one?

Aren�t we all called to �drop our nets� and follow Jesus? But if they did drop their nets for good, why did they take Jesus out on the lake fishing later? Why did they go back to their old habits of fishing after the Resurrection? Life goes on, my friend, even if you are in the third "pew" (another tradition of the West).

//Nowhere do I get the sense that Jesus said: "Pack up your bags, bring the wives and kids, and come along."//

Maybe he gave his speech about celibacy at Cana?

//Somewhere, me thinks, Jesus expected to have his "chosen ones" totally committed to Him, not wives, or children, for the work they were to do.//

But Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. Was he wasting his time on those who weren't 101% dedicated? You are entitle to your opinion, but how does it stand against two thousand years of Christian tradition? The topic was about the nature of the priesthood, not whether the Apostles left behind their families. So what if they did? The Apostles were not bishops either, hence the reason why Peter is never listed as Rome�s first bishop in the early church lists. Can we get back to my original question: whether marriage or celibacy is the nature of the priesthood?

//Maybe the analogy however limp has merit here. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. You will either hate one or despise the other. You either love God totally and comletely and be a "Father of Souls" Oche Duchovni", or you have a wife and children and be a father to them, just as noble a vocation come to think of it.//

Might Jesus be referring to either serving God or evil? I know a lot of married professionals who have served humanity well. But why do you need a priest to sit home 24/7 awaiting your needs as a celibate? Does knowing that he is there for you 24/7 make you love God more? Marriage is more than just a vocation, it is a sacred mystery (a "sacrament" for those still sitting in pews).

//But mixing both, maybe needs to be looked at from Jesus' point of view, �//

You seem to have a grasp on what Jesus� POV is. Do you have any sense what the Church�s POV is? The Vatican II documents upheld the venerable tradition of the married priesthood, the Western Catholics have welcomed many married clergy into their presbyteral ranks, and some Catholic seminaries are full with vocations that are married or will be married. Does this bother you? Are you willing to say that the entire Catholic Church is at fault because it doesn�t agree with your opinion?

Let me know if the �nature� of the priesthood is determined by marriage or celibacy.

Joe

Church tradition is that it is acceptable to ordain married men in the Byzantine rite Churches. Therefore, it is completely acceptable to the Catholic Faith.

Getting back to the original topic of the thread,
I agree 100% that the problem isn't celibacy or anything else. It's the presence of (little o)orthodoxy and a strong spiritual life. If a diocese/eparchy doesn't have, as a whole, a serious spiritual life, it will not have vocations and die - no matter what its rules on celibacy are.

That said, I am all for ordaining married men in the Byzantine Catholic Church. And I already see this happening. I would not be surprised if within 10 years a Byzantine Catholic parish I've visited will be run by a group of married priests. It has a "spiritual life" that matches any Orthodox parish, and has the full participation of several deacons, subdeacons and readers. And hopefully more younger ones are on the way.

Marc

I just had to post something in "Evangelization" because the "number of posts" for this forum was equal to the number of the beast.

Is thirdpew out there?

Joe

Dear Joe,

I wonder if he's hiding behind the fifth column?

Alex

Maybe thirdpew moved to the secondpew or the fourth pew.

Or maybe thirdpew became a vostochnik and goes by nopew.

Dave