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

I couldn't agree more. We do a little Slavonic every Sunday in my parish. Once a month we do about a quarter of the Liturgy in Slavonic. It's still not that much, but the core group of younger people (myself not included) wants Slavonic entirely ELIMINATED!

This is just ridiculous! Half the parish is 65 or older. One older couple threatened to leave if Slavonic wasn't kept in place! They grew up with all Slavonic and have just as much a say as the younger people who think THEY THEMSELVES run the parish.

As far as converts, I was one of three to join the parish last year. Myself and one of the other two settled on the parish mainly because of Slavonic. The priest pointed that fact out at the council meeting. Pretty much ended that debate.. The liturgy seems to take on a different air in Slavonic, and I would hate to see it totally eliminated.

A convert coming in might actually like the fact that another language is used, and try to learn some of it. I did. I sing the Otce Nas with pride, and catch the younger people staring straight ahead with stern looks on their faces, as if it's killing them to hear it. Sad Sad Sad....

Speaking as someone who supports the married priesthood, I personally went to marriage preparation with a celibate priest. It worked out rather well. Neither form of vocation is fatally flawed. They both work rather well and deserve respect.

I strongly suspect that in my own diocese, our frail finances reduce our boat rocking potential. That fact has pushed me in directions I prefer not to go, getting involved in the money end of the Church more than I ever wanted to.

All scandal and jokes aside, about those who hold the purse of the parish, this is a much needed service that demonstrates a great deal of commitment to your church.

Let the faitful step forward and spend their time worrying about how to pay the "light bill" free up Father from bearing the burden of "parish comptrolleter" The burdens he bears, are awesome enough.

In this "Little Way" the tedious, the mundane, the unextra-ordnidary we can serve. Let those with the time, talent and treasure, offer it as they may... My grandmother used to repair damaged vestments using her skills as a dressmaker and seamstress. That is what she did well, that is what she offered.

Prayers for you TM!

Back in 1996 or 1997 (around that period) I emailed Bishop John Elya and spoke with him about the priesthood. He indicated that it was not possible for a married man to become a priest (he had ordained one married man and the unofficial word is that Rome was rather displeased). He said that I should consider the deaconate. Of course, in my opinion, this is an insult to the deaconate, since it suggests that the deaconate is made up of largely, married men who can't be priests (though they want to be).

In my opinion, MANDATORY (ALL CAPS for emphasis, not shouting) celibacy for clergy is unjust and unbiblical and should not be the norm in any rite. Indeed, to mandate celibacy as the norm for all priests is to show a misunderstanding of the priesthood, a misunderstanding of the gift of celibacy, and a lack of attention to Scripture and the earliest traditions of the Church.

Yes, married priesthood has its poblems; as does celibate priesthood. Where there are human beings, there are problems and we cannot program our priests not to have any problems. I think that the Roman Church made a huge mistake in mandating celibate priests and she has had to pay the price for it.

I think a celibate priesthood is a beautiful thing as does any Orthodox. That is why we have hieromonks and that is where we get our Bishops.

I'm curious, does the current Melkite Bishop in the United States have to ask for permission from Rome to ordain a married man? Is he even interested or has he said anything on the subject? The only Bishop that I know who was adamantly for ordaining married men will never be installed as a Bishop with authority. He will remain an auxillary, unfortunately.

Joe

I suspect that the lack of financial resources in the parish is partly because a married piesthood hasn't been the norm. Protestant churches seem to have no problem paying their pastors quite nice salaries (last time I checked the median income of Southern Baptist ministers was somewhere between $60k and $80k, not a bad gig).

Perhaps, the problem now is that people would have to really give and tithe like they ought to and yet people have been habituated, for generations, to not worry about the priesthood since a single, celibate priest can live below the poverty level if necessary (and indeed this is something admirable in our celibate clergy).

Joe

Dear JS,

In recent days, I have heard, from more than one priest in my Eparchy, that Rome has "signalled" that the ordination of married Eastern Catholic men in the Diaspora is no longer viewed as "problematic". As to the details of such a "signal", I have no knowledge. This bears watching.

Dn. Robert

Father Deacon Robert,

This is good news. Indeed, if the Lord has in mind a number of married men for the priesthood in the eastern Catholic Churches, then there might be new avenues for missions and church growth. My understanding is that in the Antiochian Orthodox Church, there is a definite need for more clergy, not because there is a drastic shortage of priests and seminaries, but because we are still growing at a reasonably fast rate, establishing new missions and growing parishes. I would love to see the same for the eastern Catholic Churches (well, really for all of the Churches, east and west), especially for my former Church home, the Melkite Church.

Joe

As to the matter of the Anglican priest becoming Catholic, his becoming Roman Latin Catholic would certainly seem to make sense, as that is the branch of the Catholic Church that most closely resembles where he was baptized. My understanding is that is standard canon law. When I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy I was forced to enter Byzantine Ruthenian Catholicism, though that branch was not my personal choice. If personal freedom is to become the rule, it would be nice to see some consistency and have it work both ways.

Robster.

The problem I have is just this simple.... Orthodox don't "convert" they are recieved. Being already possesed of sacraments understood to be valid, it is reasonable that the Roman Church would make provision for how and where they are to be recieved.

We accord no such "church" status to the Anglicans. 400+ years of not being Catholic... well it seems resonable that all or us can go after their wayward sons and daugters! <G>

With all due respect, I disagree. I am from a Jewish background and I have even heard people claim that I didn't convert, but merely became fulfilled, when I went from Judaism to Christianity.

While I do try to seek basic cordiality with all, I'm not much for ecumenical and interfaith fluffery when it comes to the nuts and bolts of faith and the divisions and differences that exist between various religious groups. For me, when one moves from one religious group to another, one has converted. That includes my moving from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, due to what I believe to be a fullness of faith and truth that is only to be found in Catholicism.

Either everybody should be entitled to freedom of choice upon entering Catholicism, or if the Church sees fit to have rules to help ensure that so-called Easterners remain 'Eastern', then there should be nothing wrong with, and it would be quite appropriate, to have the same rules in place to ensure that so-called Westerners remain 'Western'.

Regards to all,
Robster

robster,

I believe that the intent of that rule is to protect the Eastern churches from being pirated by Latins (there is an unfortunate history of that). We are small - mustard seed sized churches. The Latin Church is large and wealthy and has far more clergy per capita.

That being said, I believe that the decision to impose such a rule on a converting Anglican clergyman is wrongheaded and unjust and will only cause Anglicans who are leaning Eastward to go over to the Orthodox jurisdictions, which is our loss.

So it is not a matter of simple parity, since the deck is already stacked against us.

As to respecting the Latin tradition of celibacy, I believe it is respected by the East - in spades. The idea of universally mandating celibacy (with a few exceptions) to be considered for ordination to the presbyterate is what I find aberrant, and even un-Scriptural and un-Traditional. The implications of Paul's letter to Timothy is very clearly that how a person has raised his family is to be a discerning indicator for the bishop and the community (the household of faith) of his worthiness for ordination.

Suppose that the Lord is calling shepherds and the Latin Church is refusing to recognize vocations because these men are married? What will they say at the Last Jugement: "Well...at least we maintained celibacy!"

Sorry. The Augustinian principle of ordo amores applies here. Which is a higher priority: access to the Sacred Mysteries or a personal-ecclesial discipline, however heroic and praiseworthy it may be? To deny congregations regular access to the sacraments (which directly serve and facilitate our salvation in Christ) because of a universal discipline that is intended to ensure a radical availability to provide acccess to the sacraments and the preaching of the Gospel strikes me as being a bit of a contradiction.

Vatican II attempted to address this issue by allowing married laymen to be ordained deacons - and then proceeded to relegate a whole host of presidential responsibilities which were proper to the priesthood to the diaconate. To my mind, this was a "work-around" that disrespected the ordo of deacon all in the name of maintaining a mandated celibacy for priests.

Let me say: I believe the decision to embrace a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom to be truly heroic and praiseworthy. As Jesus indicated, some are called to this level of radical dedication and radical availability for the sake of the Gospel. Paul indicated the clear benefits of this. But the notion that such a heroic call should be a canonical requirement for the presbyterate is just wrong.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

Well said.

Joe

Hi Gordo, hope all is well.

By the way, I was not dealing with or trying to address the celibacy issue in my post.

As for your opening comments on relative sizes, I must simply 'agree to disagree'. I am an adamant, unyielding opponent of any notion of affirmative action and double standards and sets of rules. I don't accept it with Jews, blacks or women. And I don't accept it with Eastern Catholic churches insofar as they may claim they are entitled to special rules and privileges while also being able to evade the full responsibilities of what I have come to believe is entailed in being a Catholic church sui urius (sp?).

Without getting into historical polemics, the overwhelming majority of so-called Easterners are not Catholic and have chosen to be so. A majority of so-called Westerners are Catholics. That's the situation as it exists, and I don't think the Roman Latin Catholic Church owes anybody an apology for it.

I am willing to accept various Catholic churches as full equals, but not as allegedly poor, abused victims who are entitled to a vast array of special rights, privileges, and lowered levels of responsibility.

Best to all,
Robster

robster,

Doing well! Glad to see you posting.

How very Darwinian of you!

Fortunately for all involved, the governance of the communion of the Church is not based on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc etc of the United States but rather on the economia of charity and deference to the poor and lowly. You and I agree when it comes to affirmative action now as applied to society and the marketplace (there was a time when it was an unfortunate necessity, especially in the South - and I say that as a Southerner by birth). But the Church has its own ordo as clearly stated in Sacred Scripture when it comes to the charitable obligations of larger, stronger churches towards smaller, weaker ones.

God bless,

Gordo