www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Role of Presbyteras

Dear Friends,

With all this talk of married priests, is there a consensus as to the specific parish role of the Presbytera?

We have had married priests forever. Some of the Presbyteras were active in the parish while others were not.

What is the traditional role of the Presbytera in the parish?

My grandmother was one and she seemed to be the one to talk to the women of the parish on issues that her husband may have felt ill at ease with.

She consoled the women who lost family members.

She organized youth groups and made sure that girls didn't sit on boys' knees during parish dances . . .

She led prayer groups.

She kept the parish finances in order.

Most of all, she kept her husband, Fr. John, in order, making sure that his schedule was organized and that he kept to it, that the Liturgies and services were done in time, that he behaved properly toward the parishioners and used tact in his dealings with them.

In short, if the Priest and his Presbytera are a "team" in the parish, the Presbytera is the "heart" of the team.

Any comments?

Alex

Alex,

I, and everyone in my diaconal class, think that wives of priests and deacons should be able to decide what role they have in parish ministry if any at all. Given the fact that if we do regain a married priesthood, they will probably have to have to support themselves, I think it would be unfair to the priest and his wife and family to demand anything of the wife. If she wants no active role that is her right. And if the priest is running the parish and working a job, the family is already sacrificing time with the father. It would be unfair to expect the kids to sacrifice mom time too. SHe will already have her hands busy raising a family if not working a job as well. But even if they are childless and the wife doesn't work she still has the right to no active role. It his her husband being ordained, not herself.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

Yes, no presbytera should be forced into a role she would be uncomfortable with.

But it would seem that to marry someone who will be a deacon or priest is to put oneself into a special and unique position no matter what one decides in this matter.

Like it or not, wives of priests are in the public eye by their parishioners and others.

Like it or not, they will probably be "judged" in social terms by their participation in the life of the parish as "clergy assistant" and how they do this.

Believe me, up here, presbyteras who don't take on something of an active role in the parish have their lives made uncomfortable!

In short, an impact on their lives in this respect is unavoidable.

And I know priests who work together with their presbyteras and run a parish AND raise a family.

A lot to expect to be sure. I guess that's why no one would dance with me at my Ukrainian high school prom once the principal announced, without my permission, that I would be entering a seminary.

Alex

If the wives of priests should not be expected to carry any function in the Church, then why should we call them presbyteras? The very title implies a ministry.

In Christ,
Ality

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Lance - What do you mean by if . . . ?

Speaking for the Ukrainian Church of Chicago, almost half of our priests are married with families.

The Eparchies of Toronto, Parma, and Saskatoon also have married clergy.

A married clergy is matter of "ordaining" not "regaining".

In Christ,
ALity

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Dear Ality,

Actually, what a brilliant point you have just made about Presbyteras!

I agree. If Lance is in a situation where married priesthood is "iffy," then he should come over to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The same goes for Cantor Joe! (I don't care if I'm called a "clerical snatcher!") .

You know, come to think of it, what would be wrong with some sort of formal courses for Presbyteras-to-be?

As I said, they are going to be put into a situation where they will be really expected to fulfill a role, if even one of support for their priestly husbands, once they've "collared" a seminarian.

And, in general, what a boon for gender equality! There will be many times in their lives when they simply won't be sure who wears the pants in the family!

Alex

This document, by Fr. Nick Rachford, illustrates that there are no canonical obstacles for any Eastern Catholic Church in America which prevent them from ordaining native-born married men to the priesthood in North America.

If your current Ruthenian Catholic Church will not ordain married men to the priesthood, then maybe Alex is right . . . Perhaps you should join the other Ruthenian Catholic Church in America, known as the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Or perhaps we could do the most Christian and logical act, and re-unite our two Ruthenian Churches into one Ruthenian Church.

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS CONCERNING MARRIED EASTERN-RITE PRIESTS IN THE UNITED
STATES
All rights reserved by the author


Fr. Nick Rachford


The first document restricting the married presbyterate in the United States
was the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius X, Ea semper, dated 16 Sept., 1907.
(Text in Latin in Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 41, 1908, pgs. 3-12).
Among other things, in Chapter II it treated of the status of the clergy.
Article X of Chapter II states that, in future, the foreign-born clergy were
to be replaced by candidates educated in America. However, only those who
were celibate now and would be in the future were to be promoted to sacred
Orders.
Article XI refers to the situation in the meantime. Until there are enough
native-born clergy the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
for Affairs of the Eastern Rite will take care of it.
Article XII stipulates that the priests to be chosen are to be celibate, or
at least widowers without children, have integrity of life, be outstanding in
zeal and piety, sufficiently learned, not eager for money and a stranger to
political factions.
Next is the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith for the Affairs of the Eastern Rites, Cum episcopo, Aug. 17, 1914.
(Latin text in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), vol. 6, 1914, pgs. 458-463). The
decree was to be in effect for 10 years. The intention stated in the first
paragraph "to establish laws concerning the spiritual administration of the
Greek-Ruthenian Church in the said region (United States of America).
The chapter headings parallel those of Ea semper and the material treated is
essentially the same. It is useful here to quote at length from Article 10.
"Greek-Ruthenian priests designated for the regions of the United States of
America are to be educated in a proper Ruthenian-American seminary, for even
in other colleges, whether in America or outside America, according to the
need of the Ruthenian Church and the judgment of the Ruthenian bishops. That
the Greek-Ruthenian Church may praiseworthily grow in the United States of
America, can carry out and expand its providential mission among the
Greek-Ruthenians, it is necessary for it to have priests of integrity of
life, outstanding in zeal and piety, sufficiently learned, not eager for
money and a stranger to political factions."
In the whole of this article no mention is made that these seminarians must
be and remain celibate as did Ea semper.
However, Article 11 treats of securing priests from the Ruthenian bishops of
Galicia or Hungary, going through the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith for the Affairs of the Oriental Rite. There is no mention of any
restriction on married priests coming to the United States to minister to the
Greek-Ruthenian faithful.
Also of significance is the treatment of conferral of chrismation by
Greek-Catholic priests. Ea Semper had specifically prohibited it, stating
that such an administration by a presbyter would be invalid. ("Presbyteris
ruthenis in America commorantibus penitus interdicitur, ne baptizatos sacro
Chrismate consignent; et si secus fecerint, sciant se invalide egisse.").
This prohibition is not repeated in Cum episcopo of 1914, nor in any
subsequent one of the documents relative to the Ruthenian Church in the
United States. In the footnotes to The Documents of Vatican II (Abbott,
Walter M., S. J., America Press, 1966, pg. 379, footnote 27) we read, "By
going back to the primitive tradition, the Council very fortunately settles
once and for all a question which has raised many conflicts in the past. In
the apostolic letter Ea Semper of 1907, the Holy see had deprived the
Byzantine rite priests in the United States of their right administer the
sacrament of confirmation, but the opposition was so great that it had to be
tacitly restored seven years later..." Here is another, verified, example of
a change in law made by omitting its repetition in a document that reorders a
previous one.
The next document was Cum data fuerit, issued by the Sacred Congregation for
Eastern Churches on March 1, 1929. The decree was to be effective for 10
years. (Latin text is in AAS, vol. 21, 1921, pgs. 152-159. An English
translation is available in Canon Law Digest (CLD), vol. 1, pages 6-16.
The opening paragraphs state, "The... Cardinals in full session ...decided to
revise the opportune laws enacted by the Sacred Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith pro the Affairs of the Eastern Rites on 17 Aug.
1914, (which had expired on Aug. 18, 1924) and to reenact them so revised, by
the present Decree regarding the spiritual administration of the two
bishoprics of the Greek-Ruthenian rite in the aforesaid territory. (latas die
17 Augusti 1914, eo modo qui sequitur visum est noviter aptare, easdemque
praesenti decreto iterum ferre, circa spiritualem administrationem duorum
Ordinariatuum graeco-rutheni ritus in praedicta regione.)
Article 3 states, "The said Bishops have the right and power to rule and
govern their flock and to establish laws and statutes in matters which are
not contrary to the common law. Their chief function will be to see that
doctrine and good morals as well as the rites and discipline peculiar to this
Church be observed faithfully and in their entirety. (emphasis that of the
author)
Article 11 makes mention of seminarians. The text repeats part of what was in
Ea semper but does not include the requirement to take the vow of celibacy
before being admitted to ordination. "In the meantime let the clerics attend
a Latin seminary designated by the Ordinary; and let them have one or two
priests of their rite to instruct them thoroughly and carefully in their own
rite and Liturgy."
Article 12 includes the directive, "In the meantime, as has already several
times been provided, priests of the Greek-Ruthenian rite who wish to go to
the United States of North America and stay there, must be celibates."
Unlike Ea semper, This is the only mention of a required celibacy for
priests. Since Cum data fuerit revised and reenacted the laws of Ea semper,
the requirement of that document that only those taking a vow of celibacy be
admitted into the seminary was not reenacted. In virtue of canonical
principle in practice then and now. "If the later law is equally general or
equally particular with the former one, then the later law repeals the former
one in only three cases: (a) if it contains an explicit statement to that
effect, a repealing clause; (b) if it is directly contrary to the former law,
so that it is evidently impossible for the two to stand together; (c) if it
deals with the entire subject matter of the former law." (Canon Law: A Text
and Commentary, Bouscaren, Ellis and Korth, fourth edition, 1963, pg. 36).
Reference is to canon 22 in the Codex iuris canonici (CIC) of 1917; canon 20,
Codex iuris canonici, 1983; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, (CCEO)
1990.
Another principle of interpretation of law is that ecclesiastical laws are to
be understood according to the proper meaning of words considered in the text
and the context; if a doubt still remains recourse is to be had to parallel
places in the Code, to the purpose of the law and to the mind of the
legislator. Reference is to canon 18, CIC, 1917; canon 17 CIC, 1983; canon
1499 CCEO, 1990.
A final principle of law that must be considered here is that laws which
establish a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights or contain an
exception to the law are to be interpreted strictly. Reference is to canon
19, CIC, 1917; canon 18, CIC, 1983; canon 1500, CCEO, 1990.
Looking at the text and context of Ea semper and Cum data fuerit one sees
easily enough that Cum data fuerit treats the same matters as Ea semper. In
fact, the chapter titles are the same in both documents, as many of the
article numbers.
In the light of this and the text that states, "...Cardinals in full session
...decided to revise the opportune laws enacted by the S.C. Prop. Fid. pro
Negotiis Rituum Orientalium on 17 Aug. 1914, and to reenact them so revised,
by the present Decree regarding the spiritual administration of the two
bishoprics of the Greek-Ruthenian rite in the aforesaid territory." it is
clear that it deals with the entire subject matter (totam de integra ordinet
legis prioris materiam) of the former law and principle (c) of the canons
about abrogation of prior law would apply to Cum data fuerit. Since it makes
no mention of a requirement of celibacy for ordination of native-born clergy,
it seem that the conclusion one must make is that this portion of Ea semper
was abrogated with the promulgation of Cum data fuerit.
A final point is that related to the legal principle that laws which restrict
the free exercise of rights or contain an exception to the law are to be
interpreted strictly. Most would agree that married clergy is a right of the
Greek-Ruthenian Church, and was explicitly included as such is the conditions
of the Union of Uzhorod. This point, in conjunction with the decree's
statement italicized above that the bishops are to see that the, "discipline
peculiar to this Church be observed faithfully and in their entirety", would
further argue that Ea semper's requirement of a celibate native-born clergy
would no longer be in force.
The next pertinent decree, Qua sollerti, Dec. 23, 1929, (Latin text in AAS,
vol. 22, 1930, pgs. 99-105; English translation in CLD, vol. 1, pgs. 17-24)
states in its opening paragraphs, "And to this end appropriate laws and
decrees have very often been enacted by the Holy See.
"But since in the course of time these laws and decrees have either not been
well understood or have passed, as it were, into oblivion, and not a few
abuses have arisen of such a nature as to be likely to cause serious
detriment of good priests of the Oriental rite, this Sacred Congregation has
deemed it opportune and even necessary to mention those laws and decrees once
more, and to restore them, especially for the purpose of providing more
effectively for the spiritual welfare of the faithful of the Oriental rite."
With this stated intention on the part of the Congregation it is to be noted
that, again, there is no mention of ordaining only those men who are and will
remain celibate, although it requests Latin ordinaries, "Also and especially
they should foster ecclesiastical vocations in the native-born children of
those faithful of the Oriental rite, and see that they be not only trained to
piety and instructed in ecclesiastical studies, but also, after consulting
this Sacred Congregation, that they be duly instructed in their own rite, and
ordained."
Article 6 repeats the prohibition of married priests from exercising ministry
in the United States, "Secular priests who have a wife shall not be admitted
to exercise the sacred ministry in these countries, but only celibate priests
or widowers. Widowers may, however, for just cause, be excluded by this
Sacred Congregation from those dioceses and places in which they may have
children living or in any way present; and the same is true of the adjoining
localities."
Article 18 establishes, "The Ruthenians, however, who go to the United States
of America or to Canada, to exercise spiritual ministry under the
jurisdiction of Ordinaries of their own rite, are to observe the special
decrees which have been enacted by this Sacred Oriental Congregation." Canon
Law Digest places a footnote on this article, "For the U.S., Decree of 1
Mar., 1929, AAS 21-152, reported above." The reference here is to Cum data
fuerit.
In the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Eastern Churches, Per Decretum,
of Nov. 23, 1940, the provisions of Cum data fuerit were extended for another
10 years, with a few modifications none of which concerned a celibate clergy.
This is the last decree for the Ruthenians in the United States treating of
these matters. There was no decree issued on or before 1950, the end of the
period for which it was enacted. In the light of this it is clear that even
those special provisions which were in force went out of force on Nov. 24,
1950.
Not until 1957 is there further legislation about priests. This is the motu
proprio of Pope Pius XII, Cleri sanctitati of June 2, 1957, promulgating
canon law for the Eastern Churches (published in AAS, vol. 49, 1957, page 433
ff.).
Canons 68-75 are the ones relevant to this discussion. These canons do not
legislate a celibate presbyterate. They praise the celibacy of clerics, state
that subdeacons and clerics in major orders cannot contract marriage, note
that this new legislation changes nothing about admitting married men to the
subdiaconate or major orders either absolutely or with dispensation from
either the patriarch or local hierarch. Finally (canon 72) refers to marriage
of clerics below subdeacon and ordination of married men in those rites in
which married clergy are not permitted (note that the reference is to "rites"
and not to specific jurisdictions, v.g. eparchies, of some rite).
It seems proper from the foregoing that it is a correct canonical conclusion
that there is currently no law in force in the United States prohibiting the
ordination of native-born married men to the presbyterate, nor has there been
since Cum data fuerit, March 1, 1929.
clsa.htm norms.htm

I think they should definately do this. My girlfriend, I think, would find this benficial, since she is by birth a Roman Catholic and just learning our ways.

And your point is well taken regarding how the role of the Presbytera can and will ease the clamor of the feminist movement against the traditional teachings of the Church regarding the priesthood.

Christ is Risen!
ALity

By the way which Church do you attend in Toronto?

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Friends Alex and Ality,

I am sorry but I cannot disagree with you more. What you propose would even further limit potential candidates to the diaconate and presbyterate. Again I state nothing other than the wife's consent to share her husband can be required. Some Latin diocese due require the deacon candidate's wives to take all the classes with her husband. Again I see this as unfair to the wife who may want no part of public ministry and to the children who are now losing time not only with dad but now mom. Not to mention that such a requirement is completely uncanonical. Thankfully, the Ruthenian Metropolia was wise enough not require or expect any of this.

I mean no offense to those presvyteras and diakonissas who had an active role, but this is 21st century America not 19th century Ukraine. The expectations can't be the same for priests and deacons let alone their wives. And as far as their titles, I always saw this as simply honorific and never implying a ministry other than supporting one's husband in his vocation and sharing him with others. In my book this alone entitles them to great honor.

Also, Alex, you mentioned they would be judged. We also talked about this at our retreat. We also agreed we are not about to allow our wives and children to be held to a different standard. All are called to the same holiness, not all in the same manner. All will make mistakes and fall. So when my children do something wrong I will correct them, but I refuse to come down harder on them because they are the deacon's sons. I went to Catholic grade school where my mother was a teacher and grew up with that kind treatment. I will not do it, nor will I allow others to do it. I will not allow others to question the way my wife decides to participate in my ministry. That is her decision not theirs.

As to regaining married priests, here in the US the Ruthenian Metropolia must receive a dispensation from Rome to ordain a married man to the presbyterate. This is in our particular law. I do not no what the canonical status of the other Eastern eparchies is, but I am sure the only US Eastern bishop to ordain a married man by his own hand is Bishop John of Newton (Melkite) and after being scolded for doing so has not done so again. The Ukrainians have many married priests but none ordained by the bishops here as far as I know. I know at least all the married priests in Parma (Ukrainian) were ordained by bishops from Ukraine. I believe the same is true for the other Ukrainian Eparchies in the US but if anybody has any knowledge to the contrary please post it.

As for going Ukrainian, I love you guys but could never abandon the Carpatho-Ruthenian Church. I will stay and work to regain our rights unjustly denied us and restore our Church's patrimony.

In Christ,
Lance

I agree with Lance. When I was sent to the local Latin deacon program here in Cleveland, they approached the deacon ministry as a husband-wife team vocation. My wife, who has a profession of her own was confused over who had the calling to the diaconate. She supports my vocation but didn't feel she needed to become a deaconess herself. But the older deacons were into this golf club craze and we felt too young to join in all the fun. Besides, we had a son to raise and we had many more years to go before enjoying retirement and all that free time to be full time ministers in the Church. This was one of our biggest complaints as we had to undergo six intensive interviews with the deacon program folks, which included a concentrated effort to assess my wife.

No one in my parish expects anything more from my wife than what she already contributes. She sings in our schola and attends adult ECF classes after Liturgy on Sunday. Our son is held to the same standard as everyone else. There are no double-standards before the altar.

Alex, thank you for such tempting offers, but I prefer to remain in the Ruthenian Church of my forefathers and mothers. There is a lot of work cut out for us here too and I wish to be around to lend a helping hand if needed.


Cantor Joe Thur

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

I red that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (under Moscow) runs such a school!


Sincerely,
Reader Peter

I think we agree essentially. Supporting your husband is a ministry. So we agree. This will always manifest itself publically, even if she provides only moral support.

I believe our bishop in Parma has ordained two married men. He did not make it a public spectacle.


Why would reunification of our two churches necessitate you abandoning your Carpatho-Rusyn identity?

We were one church when we came over here in the late 1800's. We are both Rusyns and cultural/religous differences are miniscule. Our barrier is mainly geographic (Carpathian Mts.)

Both our Churches would benefit here and in Ukraine. Why would you prefer to be under the jurisdiction of a Latin Pope in Rome rather than in union with and a part of the holy synod and Eastern Patriarchate of Kyiv?

If this will be a reality in the future, why would you feel that such a union would destroy your Rusyn identity? I would think that such a union would only help both of us restore our common patrimony that we both so strongly wish to recover.

If we took the same model of the present situation in Ukraine concering the Greek Catholic Churches and applied it to the Latin Church in the US, we would have seperate Irish, German and Mexican jurisdictions each answering seperately to Rome and working independently of each other in the US. I think such a move would work against the growth and patrimony of the Latin Church in the USA.

Re-uniting would restore Uhro-Rusyns and Galacian/Kyivan Rusyn unity, split in 892 when the Magyars conquered the Uhro-Rusyn basin of Transcarpathia.

Why would you be against such a bold move of correcting the trageies of history against our people?

In Christ,
ALity

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Cantor Joe,

I would like to pose the same questions to you as well.

Most Holy Theotokos, through you intercession, restore unity to the Holy Churches of Kyiv Rus'.
That all may be one!

Christ is Risen!
Ality

Ality,

I am not at all against a united jurisdiction for all Byzantine Catholics in the US. However, there is not one and I could not switch from the Ruthenian Metropolia to the Ukrainian Metropolia as Alex suggested. However, given our dwindling numbers there is going to have to start being close pastoral cooperation between all Byzantine jurisdictions in the US if we are to remain viable, even without canonical unity.

However, I might add most Rusyns consider themselves and Ukrainians closely related but seperate ethnicities and fear that union with the Ukrainian Church would end up in the loss of our unique identity. I do not know how true this fear is, but we have the experience of the Rusyns who joined the Russian Metropolia here in the US and they have lost most if not all of their Rusyn character and adopted a Russian one.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

There was some talk of declaring a Kyivan Patriarchate, rather than a Ukrainian one, but that idea probably would still not sit well within the non-Ukrainian parishes.

Probably the best way to bring the Churches together would be to keep the existing Metropolias, and establish a worldwide Patriarchate including them all.

Since we are all spiritual children of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and our traditional language is written in Cyrillic, I have proposed the name Cyrillic Cathodox Church.


Have a Blessed Day!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck