www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West answering celibacy

Dear Alex,

I've been to Georgia - I think. No, maybe not. I visited my cousin on the East Coast when I was in the 8th grade, but I think Virginia was a far south as we went... That was a long time ago!

Tammy

Dear Tammy,

That's just peachy . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

For a Canadian, you sure know a lot about the good ol' USA! I had to look up Ontario on Mapquest to find out where in Canada it is (OK, north of New York... I know where New York is! :rolleyes: But I've never been terribly interested in geography... :p )

And here you even know the details about our lovely states! (Peachy, indeed! Next thing I know, you'll be asking how I can 'bear' to live in California! )

Tammy

Dear Alex,

You keep bringing up St. Tamara. Here is what I could find on her:

www.antiochian.org/midwest/Bishop/Handmaiden_Icon/ [antiochian.org] Handmaiden_Of_The_Lord_Icon.htm
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/ saints/tamara_georgia.htm [fatheralexander.org]
Do you have anything to add? And do you know if she is officially venerated by Catholics?

Tammy

P.S. - I can't get the URL's to come out right, even though I am using the URL button... Sorry.

Dear Tammy,

I believe she is acknowledged a Saint by the West!

And Georgia was Christianized by St Nina, Equal to the Apostles.

And also by relatives of . . . Barabbas . . .

Alex

Dear Brethren,
I'm sorry that I took so long to answer. I feel like I'm reopening something old.

Dear Rev. Fr. Deacon Lance,
I have the greatest respect for you. Still, being a Westerner myself, I believe my own tradition to be right for my own rite. It is something that I hold deep in my heart, and I would be most disgruntled (though not moved to schism) if the Pope elimated mandatory celebacy in the Roman rite. I would probably, actually become Eastern at that point --I hope it never happens. Not a slight against your tradition, merele love of my own.

Concerning some of the things that you said: You mentioned communion under one kind. For those who are Western and had no idea that the West had a rule about communion being under one species only it is because that rule was abolished after the Second Vatican Council. The rule was not made out of preference for having one part of the sign, it was made to combat heresy. Furthermore even while it was enforced, the Pope still admitted the fitness of having it under both kinds. I know you feel like the West has trimmed down incredibly on certain depths entrusted to the Church. I think that that is a fair feeling. Yet my experience and conviction has been that the Roman rite consistently delights in fullness and believes in it. Still, we have suffered our fair share of problems (while the East fell into heresy during the First millenium, many of our problems have been during the second millenium. I believe through these God has shown forth his power and glory in that the Church still prevails.). So to take certain percieved things and turn them into a judgement against us seems most unfair. Even if the West (for some reason) eliminated communion under both kinds as a slight to "the fullness of the sign" it would not be suffiecient reason for us to eliminate a dissapline the enjoyed it. Once again, I'm not speaking against the Eastern customs, I'm defending a Western.
I can see the Baptism one. Concerning Chrismation, from the West's point of view, rather than this change in custom (also very old) diminishing the sign, it brings new depths to it. Perhaps, rather than diminishing, it changes it. You can argue all you want about understanding a sacrement differently, but you'll find it in several sacrements. The understanding of marriage is so different from the Eastern understanding that for a little while I couldn't understand how Eastern Marriages could be valid. Finally I came to a better understanding of that. The understanding of the consecration of the Eucharist varies as well. I do not believe that these differences in understanding of the sacrements even constitute a problem. God invested authority in the Church by the Bishops. He did this first by giving Peter the power of binding and loosing and the keys, then by giving the power of binding and loosing to the apostles. By doing this I believe that he gave power over heaven to Peter and the other apostles. Thus, though the Church is bound to the tradition of the Apostles and the teaching of Christ, there is quite an amount of leeway in what (non-dogmatic) things the Church may do. Though the scriptures always present chrismation as occuirng right after baptism (there is also an annointing following baptism in the Western rite, though the sacrement is delayed) that does not mean that it is inherently better, in my oppinion. I will fight strongly anyone who believes that the West ought not to have turned Chrismation into Confirmation. I believe in its fitness--though my spirit is repulseded by the idea of enforcing it on you.

Concernign mandatory celebacy in the United States, I appologise profusely for it. Still, the real sin (in my oppinion) was not the imposition, but the circumstances that made the imposition possible. Those are that Roman Catholics thought that Eastern Catholics were not part of the Church and were discriminating against them. Protestants, of course, hated them. Roman Catholics couldn't understand this dissapline, and it raised tentions between the East and the West in the United States. Tragically a certain solution was chosen which has created a certain annomisity on the part of Easteners. Still, that was a case of Eastern Catholics immagrating to a dissidely Western place. Even the protestants were dissidely Western. It was also a place where Roman Catholicism was firmly established, though hated.

Why don't we try it your way? The fact of the matter is that we did. We tried it your way until the dissapline was imposed. I don't want the West to change in this area. Neither do I want the East to do that.

A few more points:

"Many of the arguments made by Latin Catholics to support celibacy attempt to raise it to the level of dogma."
True, and I'm sorry. It isn't dogma, but it is something that we jealously guard and that I do not wish to give up.

"Please show where any Easterner has called for the end of priestly celibacy in the West. "
I don't know if this counts, but try this:
"Mandatory celibacy is wrong, we believe, for secular priests."
while this doesn't call for an end to mandatory celebacy, it does state an imperical point "we (the east) believe that mandatory celebacy is wrong for secular clergy" how can it be wrong (I'm assuming that that it morally as opposed to simply not being fitting) for the East and not wrong for the West? It may not be fitting for the East, but if you do something because you believe it to be imperically wrong, it is hard to not object when someone else does it.

"There are thousands of Latin priests who have left to get married."
This is true, but remember that most of them left right after the second Vatican Council Actually, there are very few now. This is partially because priests may have not been formed well and not discerned their vocation well. This is also partially from a moral laxity on the part of many who leave the priesthood. It is also because priests do not always guard themselves against doing something not fitting for their station in life. There have also been dozens of priests who have run away with their secretaries without bothering to leave the priesthood, and dozens more who have left the entire Catholic Church. I actually admire those priests who care enough to go through the proper chanells to leave the priesthood.
Still, you have this problem in the East as well. I recall a man who became a priest and whose wife left him. He decided that he wanted to be get married again after 12 years (being that this is permitted in the Orthodox Churches), so he went to his Bishop and told his bishop that. He bishop advised, "whatever you do, do it quickly", so he left the priesthood to get married. He was later married in his previous parish to one of his former sheep. He certainly didn't wish to leave the priesthood, but there the dissapline of (at least) the Russian Orthodox is that priesthood is an impediment to marriage.
Do object to Westerners trying to enforce mandatory celebacy on the East, but please do not object to us enforcing it upon ourselves. There are many bigger things to object to.

God bless!
Joseph

Dear Joseph,

If the West wishes to enforce mandatory celibacy - that is fine.

But, in truth, the West goes well beyond what you recommend in terms of the limitations of such an imposition.

The theology of the priesthood in the West has tended to see celibacy as an intrinsic characteristic of THE PRIESTHOOD nomatter which geographic area of the Church of Christ one comes from.

For the UGCC, married priests have come into their own here by way of ignoring Rome's commands and threats against them and no longer being bothered by them.

But, realistically, for the West, what can the future of a celibate priesthood truly be given today's circumstances?

Priests are leaving to get married, and I understand there is an organization of them in North America that is over 50,000 strong. They write annual petitions to Rome to be allowed to return to active priesthood.

The presence of married priests in the person of Protestant ministers who have converted to Catholicism is also something that impacts the celibate priestly culture of the West.

Although a sensitive issue, the fact is that many laity see the celibate priesthood as partly to blame (by way of a "breeding ground") for abusive priests - that is wrong, but the perception is most certainly there.

And then there is the lack of vocations over all - except in more traditional circles.

Bishops in the U.S. are whining about the "clericalization of the laity" - but that is surely inevitable with the advent of more and more extraordinary Eucharistic ministers.

However one wishes to defend a traditional celibate priestly perspective, realistically speaking, neither time nor current events are on its side.

Alex

Dear Laudetur Iesus,

What do you mean about the Eastern concept of marriage made you wonder if Eastern marriages were even valid? I'm not attacking you, I'm honestly wondering what it is in the Eastern concept that seemed invalid to you. I know the East has a different concept than the West, but I've never really compared the two side-by-side...

Tammy

Time is not on the Side of Celebate priesthood. I think that theat is correct. John Paul II stated early in hi reign that Chiristion doctrine nor divine Law requiresit, but that it a thousand yoar old tradition THAT HE WOULD NOT CHANGE IN HIS LIFETIME BUT THAT THE NEXT POPE MAY. So it looks like it may only last another 100 years or so. I have seen references to PapL Bulls (in the Vaticas Library) from the period of 600-900 ?AD or so ;admonishing and chastizing married priests for "Selling" thier daughters to the husband with the lasgest bride price irrespective of ;his morL integrity. Then they went on about the prests duty to marry foff his daughters to husbaNDS OF HIGH MORAL CHARACTER AND HOW THE OPPOSITE SCANDALIZES THE CHURCH. sINCE ;THIS WENT ON FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS BEFOIRE THEY CLAMPED DOWN 100% IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE QUITE A WHILE FOR THEM TO RELAX THE RULING ONCE MADE. l:EGALISTIC ORGANIZATIONS ARE LIKE THAT cLIFF

well, you see, I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that in Easter theology the view is that the Priest marries the couple and so the don't (for example) exchange vows. In the West the view is that the couples marries eachother in two stages
1) by the exchange of vows before witnessess
2) by the consumation of the marriage.

So the view in the West is that the two give the sacrment to eachother, instead of the the priest giving it to them. Correct me if I'm wrong about what the East teaches. I'm not wrong abou the consensus of the West.

Tammy, thank you for being so kind to me. That fills me heart with gratitude and love for you.

Will celebacy go away? I don't think so. It is more than a 1000 year tradition in the West, but at some times almost every priest had a concumbine. If there really are 50,000 "married" priests peitioning for readmittance, that is truly sad, because they either aren't married (if they didn't get released from their vows Roman theology denies the validity of their marriage) or else, both the East and the West would concure that they can't be readmitted since they were married AFTER they were ordained which has never been admitted. God Bless!

It's been the norm in the East only when our bishops allow it to be. Our bishops have ALWAYS been the reason that 'mandatory' celibacy is the norm.

J Thur,

I am thoroughly confused by your post! LOL, sorry I'm dense, but I read your post four times and interpreted it anew each time.

Could you clarify? The wording is kind of confusing me.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

What Cantor Joseph means is that when you said celibacy has been the norm in the West, it has ALSO been the norm in Eastern Catholic Churches whenever our Latinizing bishops insist on ensuring that no married candidates are ordained for their eparchies.

And that is very true - our old bishop was in favour of married priests, but most other bishops in Canada have not, until recently followed suit.

Alex

Dear Laudetur,

You are right - in the East, the priest "gives it" to the couple.

In the West, the couple "gives it" to each other . . .

. . .which is why I prefer the Eastern way . . .

Alex