www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Priestly celibacy

Pavel Ivanovich mentions the attempt to include a "not to be ordained priest" clause in some "changes of rite". It has been tried a few times - but it doesn't work, because the common teaching of both the sacramental theologians and the canonists is that the "call to Orders" does not come from the candidate, but from the Bishop, whose choice cannot be limited in that way.

Incognitus

Thank you Incognitus for this insight. I shall pass in on to Ned in Melbourne and he can pass it on to others affected by this.

ICXC
NIKA

PA = Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Robusto - you have a friend here. If we must speak English, we can at least try to speak it well. This is, after all, the language of Shakespeare, the Book of Common Prayer, the King James Bible, Milton, Alexander Pope and a host of other good writers. Slang, computerese, and ugly abbreviations might be acceptable in Esperanto, but please, not in English.

Incognitus

That isn't very promising. :p The man, much less his contemporaries, couldn't even figure out how to spell his own name. If one perused Elizabethan literature, one would find over two dozen forms of "Shakespeare." Perhaps ByzCath should have slightly higher standards. I much prefer your suggestion of Pope. Considering that Pope preferred Horace (Latin) and Vergilius (Roman) as his model poets, however, he might not be the best choice to emulate for here. I am not well versed in Greek authors except for those who were polytheistic. Is there such a tradition of literary greatness within the eastern Christian world? I'm sure there must be. It wouldn't be hard to beat Shaxberd. :p he he.

Shakespeare
Shakespere
Shakespear
Shakspeare
Shackspeare
Shakspere
Shackespeare
Shackspere
Shackespere
Shaxspere
Shexpere
Shakspe~
Shaxpere
Shagspere
Shaksper
Shaxpeare
Shaxper
Shake-speare
Shakespe
Shakp
Shaxberd
Shak-speare
Shakspear
Schaksp.
Shakspe

Ugly Stik anyone?

I noticed in another of AcolyteJim's posts that he has had a canonical change of enrollment --or whatever it is called. I think it is an important factor in the bishop's decision, no matter how long ago it took place. I'm not saying I think it should be an important factor, but I can see how it would be. With the Ruthenians just ordaining their first married man in so many decades, I can understand why those who once were Latins would be put at the bottom of the list. With that in mind, his advice to be ordained to the diaconate might take on new meaning as well. It is possible that he looks favorably on Jim, but the timing does not? So he wants to get Jim moving through the ranks, and hopes in a few years that the timing will be more ripe. Or is it possible that someone raised concerns about Jim's (or his wife's) ability to handle the increased responsibility, and therefore the bishop wants to give him a chance to prove himself? So like Fr. Elias, I want to say there has to be a lot of decision making going on behind the scenes, and it is possible that a NO today should not be interpreted as a NO forever. And it is possible that him being married was not the sole reason the decision was made.

PS: Why is the ministry of dEacons called the dIaconate?

Dear Jim,

There's always the UGCC . . .

Alex

Or better still the Russians

ICXC
NIKA

Better still, let's re-read Father Elias's excellent post.

Wondering, that is an interesting way to look at it.

I hope you don't mean that I was offensive as it was the very last thing I intended. I don't know you and have no reason to doubt you or your sincerity, calling, or ability. I am just hopeful that there could be a positive outlook, one that is promising not only for you but for the future of the church as a whole. One that, when we look back years from now, we can all say, "Ahhh. I didn't see that at the time, but seeing how it unfolded now I am happy with the end result."

There is the possibility that we could all look back and say, "Only if..." There are plenty of posts which posit this very mentality about the state of the Eastern Catholic churches. I just am so hopeful that this will not turn out to be one of them. You know?

Dear Pavel,

Yes, the Russian (Catholics)!

Alex

Dear djs,

There are some hierarchs in many EC Churches, including the UGCC, that are simply out to dissuade against the ordination of married priests.

That has precious little to do with the Divine Will etc. (and Fr. Elias' post is excellent!), but with a Latinized view of the priesthood among Eastern Catholic hierarchs who should know better.

A number of our UGCC parishes have priests who came to us from the Latin Church.

If the BC Church is unwilling to ordain a married candidate, for example, why shouldn't that person consider going to another EC jurisdiction to become a married priest?

Unless someone can show that mandatory celibacy is a Divine law that even the EC Churches should follow - why quench the Spirit?

Alex

As Fr. Elias points out, such a discussion would be appropriate outside of the context of the advice given to one particular candidate. You seem to be assuming certain reasons for the decision in his case, notwitstanding Fr. Elias's advice against making those assumptions. I think that Father's advice is worth taking.