Howdy! This is my first post. My wife and I recently attended the Easter Vigil at a Byzantine Catholic church for the first time (so please don't be offended if I use the wrong terminology - I'm new to this)...so beautiful! We are both Roman Catholics, but very often starving for the beauty and mystery so often found in the eastern liturgies. After the Liturgy, we were talking with the priest and a few of the parishioners, and the topic turned to the frustrations with the previous bishop (?) of the Pittsburg Eparchy (?). We were told that the previous bishop was reluctant to ordain married men and that if the new one won't there will probably be a mass exodus of Byzantine Catholic priests to the OCA. I found myself being a bit scandalized by this and further venting about some "old man in Rome" making choices that the Pope just "rubber stamped". I didn't ask any questions then, simply because we couldn't stay very long, but I thought I might be able to get some here. My questions basically boil down to this: What is the role that obedience plays in the Byzantine tradition - between the faithful and their leadership (including the Pope of Rome) or the priests and their bishops or the bishops and the Pope? Any help in understanding this would be much appreciated, although I know this probably calls for a very complex answer. Thanks.

Howdy, TAC, and welcome to the forum!



This is news to me too. I wonder how probable they mean when they say probably.

Based on how you reported your conversation, I would hazard that you misunderstood a great deal or did not understand the context of the discussion. Some background:

1. In the Byzantine Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, married priests are the rule, not the exception. Most parish priests are married, most celibate priests are monks.

2. In the United States, due to the protests of Latin (Roman) bishops, the practice of ordaining married men to the priesthood was suppressed in the United States from the 1930s onward.

3. This led to two schisms in the Ruthenian Church, one in the 1890s, the other in the 1930s, in which more than half of the total membership entered the Orthodox Church.

4. Since Vatican II, the Holy See has been exhorting Eastern Catholics to recover and restore their authentic Tradition--including the Tradition of ordaining married men to the presbyterate. There are many documents in which the Vatican has extolled the antiquity, authenticity and value of this practice.

5. Despite which, for reasons known to themselves, Ruthenian bishops have been reluctant to ordain married men. This has caused a number of married men who were either in seminary or thinking about it, to move to the Orthodox Church, where they were ordained.

6. This has caused great frustration among both the clergy and the laity.

7. However, there will not likely be any exodus of Byzantine Catholic priests to the Orthodox Church of America for one very good reason: while married men cannot be ordained, priests cannot marry. Since almost all Byzantine Catholic priests are unmarried, it would profit them nothing to move to the OCA. That there might be an exodus of married men interested in serving as priests, including some married deacons, is a possibility.

8. The Eastern Catholic Churches relate to the Holy See through a curial office called the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. There is widespread feeling throughout the Eastern Catholic community that this effectively relegates us to second class status within the Catholic communion, and that our interests have not been well represented by what some call "the colonial office". This is even more true in those Eastern Catholic Churches with "patriarchal" status (i.e., headed by a Patriarch, rather than a Metropolitan), since the Congregation frequently impinges upon the traditional authority vested in the Patriarchs.

9. Eastern Christians grouse about their bishops--a lot. That, too, is tradition. We believe that bishops have a charism and duty to maintain and teach the true faith; but we also believe the entire Body of Christ, including the laity, have a charism and duty to protect it, whenever it is threatened, even by the bishops.

10. The Pope as Bishop of Rome is the focus of unity within the Church, but you relate to him differently than we do, because, as head of the Church of Rome, he's your Patriarch (even if he doesn't claim that title), and can govern according to the Tradition of the Western Church. On the other hand, we belong to autonomous "particular ritual Churches", with their own hierarchy and their own unique liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline. Our relationship is primarily with our hierarchy, and through them, with the hierarchies of all the other Catholic Churches, including the Church of Rome, whose primacy we acknowledge.

Well that didn't happen as we are seeing more and more married EC clergy in this country. I know of only a relative few BCC priests who left in recent years to marry and were received via 'economia' by either the OCA or ACROD. There certainly was no mass exodus by any means though. Some worked out, some didn't. I would say the 'back and forth' in such matters is not any greater or lessor than in any other period of time - excepting for the two periods of early turmoil in America - the time of St. Alexius and the time of ACROD's formation.

The Greeks and the Russians (ROCOR in particular) were never pleased with the vesting by reception or the 'reordination' of BCC priests who married post-BCC ordination by the OCA and ACROD, but this has happened as I said. (There are cases of either 'vesting' or 'reordination' as it varied from Bishop to Bishop over the years.)

The Russian position regarding the reception of validly ordained Catholic priests has typically been to accept them after a profession of faith and by 'revesting' rather than by reordination. The concept of 'reordaining' is for a whole bunch of reasons controversial. for some overly-legalistic Orthodox it is rationalized by concluding that the vow of celibacy was not really freely given as mandatory celibacy was never eastern and married clergy were to be guaranteed by the terms of the unions - others use other constructs to 'get by' the obvious. 'Economia' at its broadest sense of meaning is your usual reaponse. (If a good man continues his priesthood, frankly I suspect, and I hope and pray, that the Good Lord 'winks' as well.)

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Believe nothing of what you hear and half what you see." People talk and put others down just to feel important. Christians share in this non-Christian fault. Hopefully this was a one-time "vent" but if it continues you are better off staying away from this parish.

Fr Deacon Paul

Heck, you'd have heard far worse years ago - and in any number of RC parishes over the years! The Deacon gives good advice!

I understand that despite official encouragement at the highest levels to return to ancestral tradition the Holy See quietly (?) reinstated the invidious prohibition in 2008. Bishops wanting to ordain married men to the priesthood need to submit the case to Rome.
As I say when asked when the desired unity of the Churches will be restored, "Fifteen minutes after the parousia." Since 2008 I guess the wait will be considerably longer!!

Let's hope that isn't the only reason!

Well, most of them are getting up in years and their pensions are vested, so they'll stick around.

I appreciate everyone's replies, especially the first from StuartK. It was interesting to me that much of the frustrations were framed in terms of not adhering to the traditional practice of the Byzantine church. Usually we attend the Tridentine Mass, and for years many of my own frustrations have centered on what I see as the failure of many clerics to find in value in any of our own immemorial traditions. I'm only 29, but I can see value of continuing traditions as safeguards of the deposit of faith.

Can anyone point me in the direction of the schisms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the U.S. referenced by StuartK? I've not heard of these before and would like more information.

Also, back to the topic, (and phrasing it in the only way with which I'm familiar) is failure to obey "lawful authority" (except in cases where a command would be actually sinful) seen by the East as a sin against the 4th commandment?

Thanks.

Wow ... what a topic.

I would like to comment that both the Latin Rite and the Byzantine Rite are woefully lacking when it comes to promoting vocations to the priesthood.

I see a lot of people praying about it - a lot of good men being turned down - in both Rites.

Why ask for vocations when you can't fulfill them?

I should clarify.

What is lacking is not the availability of really good men.

What is lacking is admission to the programs (which frankly blows me away)

It is almost as if you have to "qualify" then be admitted to the exclusive club.

I get really tired of hearing how few priests there are = the fault is with the Hierarchy in both Rites - and forgive me for saying this - all the way up to the Pope.

One more thing Deacons, Priests, Bishops and yes even Popes are supposed to serve the laity (I mean the orginal idea was to serve them as lessers if I am not mistaken - not as superiors)

In fact the Laity is in theory equal to the Hierarchy - In reality without their donations - superior by far.

Our Orthodox brethren can claim no better either - they have the same human faults - the pride -

How can humans presume to deny "inferior" others what Christ so freely gave? Did Christ have rules?

I don't think the original disciples had Masters Degree's in Fishery for example.

I type and think too fast.

Did Christ have rules about admission into the priesthood?

Tbe Laity - with their CASH donations - are by all rights superior to the heirarchy.

It is my belief that we need to stop thinking about Popes, Bishops and Priests and Deacons as our superiors.

This does not mean we can't help them - allow the Holy Spirit work efficasiously through them with out help - including respect and liturgical and ecclisiastical honor.

But they are not Kings - they are not more special - and until we begin to realize this - we cannot give them the real respect and honor that is due the titles they hold in the real sense of The Body of Christ.

From what I understand (however limited that is) Christ did not ever advocate superiority over people by the Apostles.

Love One Another does not me Lord over them.

The teaching that I've always heard is that the laity owe obedience and docility to the hierarchy, because (as the term implies) they are the men who lead the Church established by Christ through which He saves men. It is they who are to teach, instruct and provide the Sacraments. We are, as St. Paul says, to give those "who rule well double honor". We are to hear and to obey them, for they are the representatives of Christ to us. - all this is of course from a Western understanding. I'd like to know if this is similar to what is taught in the East.

Also, I've seen the same sort of thing with men seeking admittance to seminaries, with one exception, they pick up and go to "good" (meaning orthodox and traditionally minded) bishops. In my own hometown, the local parish has lost 6 vocations in the last 5 years to other dioceses and orders, simply because the seminary here is wohorats. (without hope of reform any time soon)

TAC,

A brief, but relatively accurate, synopsis of both events can be read in this 6 page article.

Many years,

Neil