www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West married priesthood byz catholics ruthenian vs other rites?

Do all rites of Byzantine Catholics in America need to petition Rome for permission for a married man to become a priest, or only the Ruthenians. I seem to have gotten differing answers oon this. is this accurate or do all the rites in america need to petition Rome?


"The answer I got was that the Pope must approve each ordination of a married man individually and that no such approvals have been given so far...

The situation that you are referring to, in which each married candidate must be individually approved by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches in Rome, only applies to the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in North America. This requirement is found in their particular law, Canon 758 �3, which was promulgated by the late Metropolitan Judson Procyk in 1999. There is no reason to believe that any qualified married candidates to the priesthood whose names would be submitted to Rome would be rejected. However, this arrangement has yet to be tested. Up until this point the Byzantine-Ruthenian bishops have been in no hurry to ordain married men to the priesthood, and have not submitted the names of any married candidates to Rome. This may be changing soon, since by the end of this year they will have two new bishops who may very well want to ordain married men as priests."

Again, this situation only applies to the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church. Married priests are very common among several of the other Eastern Catholic Churches in North America. The Byzantine-Ukrainian, Byzantine-Romainian, and Byzantine-Melkite Catholic Churches have many married priests serving in North America. In fact married priests are extremely common among the Byzantine-Ukrainians and Byzantine-Romanians.

Especially here in Canada, married Ukrainian Catholic priests are the norm, thanks to the deceased Bishop Borecky.

Only the Ruthenian Pittsburgh Metropolia.

Bishop John of Parma has ordained three married men to the priesthood.

A technical point - there is only one "Byzantine Rite" as an aggregate; it has variants arising sometimes from long-standing traditions in a particular community, sometimes from ill-considered reforms (that of Nikon of Moscow is the classic example), and so on.

There are several Local Churches (a technical term which does not always have a specific geographic referent) which follow the Byzantine liturgical tradition. One could be pardoned for finding two visits (to, say, the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Cathedral in Moscow and the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in New Orleans) somewhat baffling, especially if one does not speak the relevant languages.

For that matter, lifelong Eastern Orthodox Christians can also be baffled - Arabs and Greeks who visit the Slav Churches are often surprised to discover that there is much less emphasis on the singing of the Akathistos to the Theotokos during Great Lent, and Arab Christians in general are downright shocked that in most of the Orthodox Slav world people will eat ham and sausage on Pascha. Contrariwise, Orthodox Slavs who visit Greece for Holy Week are equally shocked to find that the Greeks do not
retain the custom of blessing the Paschal foods and baskets (the prayers are still in some editions of the Greek service-books but the custom has long fallen into desuetude).

So it goes.

Fr. Serge

Dear Friends,

Well, I know that my great-uncle, Archbishop Volodymyr Sterniuk in Ukraine would ordain married candidates to the priesthood and these would be sent back to North America as a kind of "missionary"

Then there was the case of a married deacon ordained to the Priesthood by Bishop Basil Filevich of Saskatoon.

Bishop Filevich stated to the media afterwards that he needed an extra priest badly, that the man he ordained had an exemplary record of parish service, was great with the people who loved him, his family worked with him in his service and agreed etc.

He also said afterwards that after he ordained the new married priest he kept getting calls from RC priests from all over North America telling him, "Good for you, Bishop, good for you!"

The Latin Catholics who are most against a married priesthood for their own Church are often the ones who are 1) Lay and 2) already married themselves . . .

Alex

In the bad old days Romanians usually sent their seminarians abroad to get elevated and then applied for "emergency" permission afterwards. The Vatican accepted this and at one point we had 18 priests, 15 of which were married. At this point, I don't think we're asking permission anymore.

Orthodox Catholic,

I'm a Latin Rite Catholic, and I am opposed to married priests. I am unsure whether or not I am called - and marriage is part of it, however if one is called he should lay aside all else. He should make sacrafices. He should choose. I know this might not apply to the Eastern Rites, however I DO NOT think that we in the latin rite should break tradition.

Catholig

Catholig -

More specifically you oppose it in the Latin Church and even more specifically you oppose it for yourself... it would seem.

And that is fine.

But it is part of our legitimate patriomony, and it is not wrong or bad.

Then again, this thread is not calling for married Latins, or challenging the Roman norm even though, incidentally, the Latin Church in America has far more married priests than I believe we ever had here. I could be wrong, but last I heard there was some 90 married priests in the Latin rite... How many have we had here at any one point?

Believe it or not, our own bishops persisited in NOT ordaining married men to the diaconate, for years after the Latins in America had fully embraced this practice which may be a return to their own patrimony but it is not nearly as recent in memory or practice for them. Last statistics I saw showed there were some 14,693 "perm deacons" in the Latin Church in 2003 - many of whom (the majority) are likely married.

As recently as ten years ago a priest friend of mine noted today's (at the time over 10,000) married men in the Latin Church serving in the clergy, it is ironic a that a Rusyn WIDOWER (we all know who) caused so much controversy and schism...

On this matter I am a radical moderate:

Retain/Restore/Relax:

1) RETAIN western celibacy while really re-examing and looking at our married diaconate to really fully utilize the great gifts these men have to offer.

2) RESTORE eastern married presbyterate where it has been impeded. (The idea that Latin Catholics would be scandalized in the US because there were a handfull of Ukranian or Maronite or Ruthenain Parishes with married priests... well The Latins have far more married clergy in the diaconate and former Anglicans than the Greek Catholics in America EVER did)

3) RELAX impediments that prevent and preclude married Latins with an inclination from seeking ordination and service to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Right now the Orthodox look on the Eastern Catholic communities and see them as Romans in Greek Robes. One of the sources of scandal they have is not only is are the traditions of the of ancient communities percieved to be suppressed, but the interaction between Latins and Orthodox that have entered into full Union with Rome seem rather subdued and suppressed. Want to prove we mean business about healing the schism? Allow a greater flow and interaction between the east and west (without the dillution of either) and the message will be sent.

For years I have wondered and still do, what would the harm be in allowing married Latins who wish to serve us, serve. The Latins have certainly enjoyed a good number of vocations from men who canonically should have belonged or could belong to an Eastern Catholic Church. Would there be much harm in allowing for cradle Latins to serve us, or for the wave of Protestant clergy rushing into the Catholic Church to "swim the Tiber" and "cross the Carpathian mountains" to bring to the the Catholic Church their pastoral gifts and talents as priests for the Eastern Catholics?

Of course on that last note, one wonders how the chanceries of our bishops would even begin to respond to a wayward Anglican or Evangelical seeking Catholocism and priestly service. I can only offer conjecture, but will not even bother with that.

Catholig - you should probably understand what the "tradition" is before you assume it is being broken. Enforced celibacy in the Latin church is a fairly recent innovation (post-medieval), and the last and the current pope have both allowed married former Episcopalians and Lutherans to serve as Latin priests.

I have a very close friend who is one of these priests, and he is far more orthodox than the great majority of his brother priests within his Latin diocese. In fact the bishop uses him when he wants to "clean up" a parish and his nickname amongst the clergy of that diocese is "The Enforcer".

I have yet to find many (more than I can count on one hand) Latins who are shocked when I tell them the vast majority of parochial clergy in my Eparchy are married.

Actually the relevant (or irrelevant) office of the Holy See has had the effrontery to inform at least one of our bishops in the USA that the only "licit" way to receive a married Anglican minister and then ordain him to the presbyterate to serve Eastern Catholics is to have him ordained by a Latin bishop and then given bi-ritual faculties! Go figure.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

What authority exactly does this congregation have to regulate these matters? It seems that it is overstepping, especially given the fact that we do not even recognize Anglican orders...

God bless,

Gordo, who appreciates the opportunity to rephrase

It is constantly amazing to me the misconceptions about celibacy and preisthood. As one poster earlier pointed out, the concept of a celibate priesthood is relatively new thing, if one looks at the entire history of the Church. Peter was married. Jesus cured his mother in law. I've read that some early Christian writers maintain that Peter's wife was a disciple and healed people herself. The early Popes and Bishops were certainly married. Look at Paul's letter to Timothy. One translation is that he exhorts Bishops to be of good character and have only one wife. ONLY ONE! Does that mean if he is widowed he not remarry? Or does that mean he have not more than one wife? Good question.

I always find it amusing (or at least ironic) that when the married Greek Catholic preists arrived in America and presented themselves to the local Bishops, it was at least one Irish Bishop who was the most offended! The Celtic Church had a very long traditon of married priests and even had married monks and nuns. In fact, there were "co-ed" monastaries, where married monks, nuns, or monks/nuns married to each other, could live in a large community. And yes, they did raise families! The type of monastary did not have segregated buildings. The married religious members had huts for their family. The Church in Ireland resisted the Roman Church in the matter of celibacy for many, many years before being "convinced" (or is "taken over" a better phrase?) by Rome.

What is so threatening about a married Catholic Priest? If someone wants to choose a celibate life, there's no reason they shouldn't. But I think it should be up to the person to choose.

Just my opinion. No one said I'm infallable.

Tim

That would have been Bishop Ireland in Minneapolis when St. Alexis Toth presented himself to Bishop Ireland. Afterwards, he took 15,000-20,000 to the now OCA.

There is absolutely nothing threating about a married priest.

What I cannot understand is why married folks are suppose to go to their celibite parish priest for marriage councling or for marriage preparation.....how can somebody who is not married instruct those to be married or understand the problems of a married person?

I have never been married and I have people standing line to get advisement from me because I have helped others so successfully over the years and word spread in the community.

The argument that an unmarried man cannot give sage spiritual advisement to married couples is simply bunko.

And it was a pope who wrote the definitive text on sexuality in the Catholic Church.

I am tempted to fall into 'crude mode' so I will stop here.

M.

Surprising and somewhat amused to read that "permission from Rome" has to be obtained before a married man is ordained! This makes it appear that the ordination of a married man is something out of the ordinary, something not quite "kosher." Like "rules"must be "relaxed". "Economia" Archbishop Ireland lives on!