www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Italian media speculates: Vatican will announce massive reception

If you refer to Metropolitan Kallistos, His Eminence and I have been friends for nearly 20 years.

Fr. Serge

I noticed that. You two could not tease each other as you do, unless you were friends.

will anglican men in the future who are married be allowed to become priests ?

Implied but not explicitly stated. We'll have to wait and see, but it's one of the distinct traditions of the Anglicans, so it's not unlikely.

I seriously doubt that. First of all, these ordinariates will not have their own seminaries, and I cannot see Latin bishops allowing married candidates from within the ordinariates to use Latin seminaries. They may allow the training and ordination of former Anglican priests as a dispensation, but they will not stand still for perpetuation of a married priesthood within what is, after all, still part of the Latin Church and subject to its disciplines.

Second, these ordinariates will answer directly to the Holy See, which has made quite plain its intention to retain celibacy as the norm for Latin priests. The Holy See may continue to allow the ordination of married Anglican priests as these convert to Catholicism, but the numbers of these should taper off as more continuing Anglican groups enter communion. I would not be surprised to see a time limit imposed at some point.

Bishop John Hepworth of TAC seems to disagree, as he said in an interview which is quoted over on Rorate Caeli:

"The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future"

I still think he might be being optimistic. On the other hand, maybe this is the Vatican's way of instituting change slowly, and through existing traditions as opposed to a sudden change which would seem to be giving in to the fashion of the day...

I agree with Stuart that it is very doubtful.

In the somewhat comparable situation of the Anglican Use, the ordination of more priests to the Usage was not intended (and was not ever permitted, afaik) - which would ultimately have caused the Usage to die out.

Now, it's clear that the Ordinariates are intended to have a much longer life than the Use was ever expected to have but, with the exception of those married clerics who continue to enter communion from the Anglican Churches, there's unlikely to be any hue and cry from the pews - 'let us keep our married priests'. Take way their BCP or their rituals and you're likely to cause upset, take away the Mrs., not so much.

Filipe (hello, my friend) does, however raise the interesting prospect of it being a less obvious way of getting past an issue, without appearing to buckle under to those demanding change.

Many years,

Neil

aramis:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

We're talking about traditions of worship and theology when it comes to their bringing practices to full communion. A married clergy in the Latin Church won't fly for the reasons Stuart has enumerated.

I think in all the hoopla we ought to look seriously at the existing Pastoral Provision. It has allowed for those who have been clergy to be trained and ordained as they are in thier existing marital state. But from its first inception, it has provided that the men coming up in those parishes who wish to pursue the priesthood would have to adopt the discipline of the Latin Church. So the trajectory of married clergy is set to expire gradually. In fact, that may be why there are so few of these parishes now.

BOB

Bob, tell that to the married deacons (who are in fact clergy), like my dad.

Or to Father Scott Medlock.

I expect a restriction... Baptized and confirmed in an A-C Ordinariate parish, for example.

Retaining merried clerics long term was one of the requests of the TAC.

aramis:

We're talking about married priests, not deacons. Let's not mix the two. Of course, married deacons are clergy.

Let's remember that bringing the Anglicans into full communion is not something really new. It's healing a rift within the Latin patriarchate. But it's still the Latin patriarchate. As Stuart said, I can't imagine Latin bishops tolerating some seminarians in their seminaries being married or having the option to marry alongside their own who are required to remain celibate. It could empty the seminaries for the Latin Church.

We've also got to remember that it was just recently that a world-wide synod in the Latin Church studied this idea of relaxing the celibacy discipline and it was overwhelmingly rejected.

So that's why I'm not all that convinced that Rome will allow for an ongoing married clergy in part of the Latin Church and not in the rest of it. I think this whole thing needs to be viewed within the context of the larger whole.

As for the SSPX, we've already got a venue for them: the Priestly Society of St. Gregory, a group already reconciled. The followers of Bishop Fellay think that maybe they're about to be brought back for some sort of special position, but I think they're far off the mark there.

BOB

Just a clarification on this:


The Synod of Bishops (or "World" or "worldwide" Synod of Bishops) in the Catholic Church is universal, i.e., as a body, it encompasses both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Latin Church has no separate Synod of Bishops (or worldwide Synod of Bishops).

The Catholic Church has convened 12 Ordinary General Assemblies of the world's Catholic Bishops (East and West), 2 Extraordinary General Assemblies, and numerous Special Assemblies (which are geographical), the latest of which was the just concluded 2nd Special Assembly for Africa.

It was during the 12th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops held last year (2008) in October that the discipline of priestly celibacy was again discussed.

If I recall it right, all of the interventions made by the Eastern Catholic bishops during the Synod affirmed the value of priestly celibacy as it is currently practiced both in the Latin tradition and in the Eastern tradition.

Amado

The TAC's original request was to be brought in as a sui iuris body, perhaps after Catholic Ordination.

Archbishop Lefebvr also sought a status for the SSPX akin to a sui iuris church; Bishop Fellay seems fixated on that, too, and I agree, he's probably in for an unpleasant surprise if he pushes too hard. I do expect, however, based upon a recent quote of HH, that we will see a Traditional Roman Ordinariate within a couple years. I just don't expect that it will be JUST the SSPX (and that is exactly what HE Fellay seems to expect/want/ask).

The issue is that this ordinariate system is shaping up to be a separate ritual church that isn't self governing in the sense that sui iuris churches "enjoy" but looks like it is going to come close. The functional difference between a diocese and an ordinariate is whether the ordinary has to be a bishop. Like sui iuris churches, these ordinaries will be autonomous of the local roman bishops, but subject to the national conferences, except for liturgical matters. Until His Holiness releases the actual canon law on it, we don't know exactly how much will come over.

But we do know from past discussions of the matter that perpetuation of married clerics was one of the sticky points.

In all honesty, I would not be surprised if these personal ordinariates are functionally equivalent to a metropolitan church sui iuris except in the matter of supervisory hierarch and election of hierarchs. (As in, the defining element for metropolitan and major archiepiscopal sui iuris churches is the forwarding of a short list to His Holiness for filling eparchial vacancies, and election of their own metropolitan by similar process.) I fully expect a system of canonical enrollment identical to that of a sui iuris church.

Further, the allowance for a western rite with perpetual married priesthood and separate canonical enrollment would pave the way for more Lutheran and Methodist converts, especially since a Lutheran use has been sought for 20-some years now. (A draft LCCW was submitted to Rome in the 1980's! The Anglican Use Provision's BoDW was approved. The LCCW, a catholicised version of the LCW, was not; at the time, it looked like a corporate unification of the CoE and the CC might happen. The Lutherans were clearly not going to happen corporately above the parish level. I am aware of a Lutheran parish which, 3 times, clergy and faithful, voted to become catholic under condition of retaining the LCW, but no Lutheran Use Mass was approved.)

Also, if His Holiness does go around the general concensus, and permits perpetual married clerics in the Anglo-Catholic Rite, it would not be the first time HH has, for the obvious good of the church, overridden the majority view in favor of the more orthodox minority. (In fact, it would be at least the third... Summorum Pontificum, Liturgicam Authentium (sp?).)

And priestly celibacy is disciplinary only, not doctrinal, provided that celibate clerics are not eliminated, and as the Eastern Churches show, a mixture of married and celibate clerics will continue to exist.

The TAC gave in on one point early on, however... clerics being able to marry after ordination is also common in the Anglican Communion and in most Continuing Anglican Churches (Including the TAC)... but it is absolutely not permissible in normal contexts within the Catholic Church, except as economia for clerics with small children.

But, Bob, you need to stop saying "clergy" when you mean only priests (and by subset, also bishops). Clergy includes deacons. In fact being a deacon is, since V II, the defining element of Clergy for the Catholic Church. Ongoing married clergy IS part of Roman praxis, it is ONLY married priests which are not.

There are a number of situations in which priests are Ordinaries already. Certain monasteries, mission territories, and here in Las Vegas, Fr. Frances is the ordinary for his rite in the US (but part of our eparchy).

hawk

Ok, I see. Yes, I know of several Episcopal priests who left the Catholic Church as young men, and later became priests in the Episcopal Church. Now they are back in the Roman Catholic Church, and would love to be priests. However, there is a problem, which there must be a way of over coming, but because by being ordained Episcopalian - it was in some way a public denial of the Catholic Church.

NOW THIS IS MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, how I figured it out in my own mine.

However, they are still on appeal and maybe just maybe one day soon, they will be received. They are just totally awesome men who love the Lord, and are excellent with their people.

Although I fully believe it is another wise and benevolent move on the part of the Pope Benedict, I don't think there will be anything near a massive reception for various reasons.