The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5604 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 342 guests, and 568 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,744
Posts412,007
Members5,604
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381251 06/08/12 06:05 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Paul B
Originally Posted by jjp


People are voting - the onlyway they can, with their feet.


Not always, but most times this is a copout. This is why we have lost so many members to the Latin Church, a shorter and/or more convenient Mass is a "good" reason to switch Churches.


Equating leaving a church for a "convenient" liturgy versus leaving a church for very principled theological reasons is disingenuous and doesn't really serve the conversation very well.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381252 06/08/12 06:21 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,759
Paul B Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,759
For the same reason, posters should stop relating the decrease in the census figures solely because of the DL changes or lack of easternization, etc, etc, etc.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381253 06/08/12 06:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
I don't think I pinned this decrease solely to the topics you mention, only that it is a factor. There is a long and documented history of this being the case, so it's not worth debating to me.

Regardless of attendance, this issue (the priesthood & monastics) needs to be addressed by our church not because of census impact (in either direction), but because it is right.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: jjp] #381255 06/08/12 07:20 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Herbigny Offline
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
sorry, joining this thread rather late, but...

can someone explain the issue, given that this is a non-issue in the UGCC in Canada and the US?

I was also given to understand that it is a defacto non-issue with the Melkites who have been ordaining married men to the presbyterate in the US even before His Grace Nicholas (S) became the ruling hierarch.

Herb

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Herbigny] #381263 06/08/12 10:03 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
DTBrown Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Actually, as far as the Melkites -- after the 1995 ordination that made the news in the press, all ordinations of married men to the priesthood for the US have taken place in the Middle East.

According to the Eastern Congregation this is the procedure in place in areas outside the "canonical territories":

Quote
Archbishop Cyril Vasil, secretary of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, told CNS [Catholic News Service] in Rome that the Vatican reconfirmed the general ban in 2008, “but in individual cases, in consultation with the national bishops’ conference, a dispensation can be given” allowing the ordination. [See source ]




Last edited by DTBrown; 06/08/12 10:10 PM.
Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381264 06/08/12 11:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
Right.

What I admire about the Melkite Church is their leadership in moving the married presbyterate forward in the United States. Specifically, this part of Sayedna Nicholas's address:

"God calls men and women to religious vocations. And I believe he also calls married men to the priesthood. We need to study this situation in our country and develop the proper formation for men who are truly deemed worthy of this call. The Deacon Formation Program is a good program; however is not the backdoor to the priesthood. Married men who are called to priesthood need the same formation as those celibates who are called. I have already discussed this issue with those involved in priestly formation and hopefully soon we can see the growth of properly formed married clergy. Of course there are also major financial issues to be looked at and we will embark on this also."

We have heard Fr Loya and others in our church repeat this need.

I believe it is important to hear this stated clearly from our Bishops and our Metropolitan as well. I am becoming increasingly dubious that it will happen, though. I think that the status quo is right where they want to be. As we heard Met. William has said, "Nothing has changed."

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Herbigny] #381266 06/09/12 01:30 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
J
JDC Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
Originally Posted by Herbigny
can someone explain the issue, given that this is a non-issue in the UGCC in Canada and the US?


It seems to me like Saskatchewan is the historic canonical territory of the UGCC.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381267 06/09/12 01:33 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Herbigny Offline
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
for a while the UGCC also sent people to Lviv to get ordained (esp. by the holy confessor Metropolitan Volodymyr), but after a while they just started ordaining people in Canada and then the US.

This includes the Slovak/Rusyn eparchy in Canada (Abp. Cyril Vasil's own autonomous Catholic Church [eccl. sui. iuris]).

so...I am not sure what His Eminence Cyril is referring to when he says that the "ban" still being in effect - because according to the article in CNEWA-US, it is a ban on married presbyters SERVING. Clearly the ban is not in effect given the general practice of the UGCC in North America where, seems to me, the majority of parishes are served by married clergy nowadays. And, given the canonical principle that "custom is the best interpretation of the law".....

Not sure why His Eminence is making what appears to be a rather anachronistic statement but I am sure he has his important reasons. Maybe they have to do with Church politics. I am also pretty sure His Eminence knows exactly what is going on in the UGCC in North America.

Plus after the eparchy's parishes are fully of local priests who are married, I suppose it makes little difference whether they were ordained in the traditional "territory" or in the local Cathedral or parish.

To reiterate, it is totally a non-issue in the UGCC in Canada & the US - even with the most latinized of our hierarchs. In other words, no one thinks twice about ordaining a married candidate to the presbyterate. AND the Vatican does not say or do anything in disapproval of it - much less try to take any disciplinary action.

So a little mystified that it is such a huge issue in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in the US. (esp. given that their counterpart in Canada does not have a problem with it.)

ps: the very issue of the canonicity of the ban post Vatican II is under some considerable question (cf. the article(s) by Choly on it - who points out that the ban was strictly speaking against married presbyters coming to serve in the new world).

pps: I don't think that the UGCC hierarchs in Canada or US ever asked for individual approval of married candidates from the Roman Dicastery - which has a whole lot of other important work to do (not the assessing the aptitude of individuals for ordination).

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Herbigny] #381269 06/09/12 01:59 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
DTBrown Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Originally Posted by Herbigny


pps: I don't think that the UGCC hierarchs in Canada or US ever asked for individual approval of married candidates from the Roman Dicastery - which has a whole lot of other important work to do (not the assessing the aptitude of individuals for ordination).


The published guidelines by the USCCB would indicate that individual approvals from Rome for the ordination of Eastern Catholic married men to the priesthood is required:

Quote
"An applicant for the priesthood must testify that he is not married or, if he is married, he has the approval of the Holy See. If an Eastern Catholic candidate is married, a certificate of marriage is required along with the written consent of his wife (CCEO, c. 769§1, 2°) and the approval of the Apostolic See…” (Program of Priestly Formation, 5th edition, 2006, paragraph 66) Source


An earlier article in the Italian media refers to the same 2008 decision by the CDF as was mentioned earlier in this thread:

Quote
"On 20 February 2008, the regular meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the validity of the norm of a binding obligation of celibacy for priests of Eastern Catholic Churches who exercise the ministry outside the canonical territory. The pope, however, has given the Congregation for the Eastern Churches the authority to give a dispensation from this norm, with the approval of the Episcopal Conference in question." (Text here , translated from Italian.)


I believe that the US, Canada and Australia are the only Episcopal Conferences which have given their approval to the policy of allowing these ordinations by dispensations. Otherwise, in other countries outside the "canonical territory" the "binding obligation of celibacy" is in force for Eastern Catholic clergy.

Last edited by DTBrown; 06/09/12 02:12 AM.
Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381270 06/09/12 02:13 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Herbigny Offline
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
The hierarchs of the UGCC are not properly part of the Latin church episcopal conference (eg, not allowed to President, because it is a Latin Church organization). Our hierarchs are only there (kinda) out of courtesy.

Vatican policy and Vatican practice (and UGCC practice) obviously 2 very different things. As to the wherefore and the why of it...(not a simple thing).

The general practice and reality of the Church is: no problem with ordaining married candidates to the presbyterate. The Vatican and the specific Eastern Dicastery has not and does not enforce any ban vis a vis the UGCC. Dispensations are neither sought nor given. That's the way it is.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Herbigny] #381271 06/09/12 02:27 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
DTBrown Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
In the US, the Eastern Catholic bishops are part of the USCCB. See a listing here.

So, the dispensation policy in the US mentioned by the USCCB publication would seem to be in effect unless there is evidence to the contrary that can be produced.

As for Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops lists the Eastern Catholic Bishops here.

Quote
Dispensations are neither sought nor given.


I was just going by published statements by the Eastern Congregation and the USCCB. Are there published statements to the contrary that you are aware of?

Last edited by DTBrown; 06/09/12 02:34 AM. Reason: corrected link
Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381275 06/09/12 02:57 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Herbigny Offline
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Dear Mr Brown (et al.):

I am pretty sure that the US UGCC bishops (Vladykas Stefan, John, Richard, and prior to them, Robert, Michael) do not and have not gotten dispensations for their ordination of married candidates.
(but I cannot produce the documents [or Lack of documents] from the Chancery, but I have it on pretty good authority from those working in the chancery [not just hearsay, I can assure you that much])

Yes, our hierarchs attend the meetings, but as I said, they are not full members (forget where exactly I read it, and it is too technical a point to find on the internet and it was explained to me by one of our hierarchs) because the episcopal conference is a Latin church organization, and the hierarchs of the UGCC are there only by courtesy (and are expected to pay the fees - a strange sort of courtesy). We are trying to get out of both attendance because the issues shared and coordinated by and large have nothing to do with us but ESP. trying to get out of paying the fairly hefty costs of our courtesy membership (same price as proper members).

The Episcopal Conference also seems neither to raise nor object to or enforce any sort of ban - and for sure THEY know the praxis of the UGCC in Canada (and I dare say, in the US too).

I would be VERY surprised if the technical vagaries of the canonical status of Eastern Catholic Hierarch's status would be explained on the internet. I would suspect most latin canonists and most latin bishops would not have known this. (are you surprised at this?)

If you don't believe, ok - I can live with that. :-)
Just sharing what I know and asking a question that does honestly mystify me: if ordaining married men is no issue with the UGCC AND the Slovak Eparchy of Canada, then (whatever the "ban" or official policy might say) why is it a such a big deal with the Ruthenians?
Our hierarchs just did it. Not one, not the Vatican, nor the Dicastery, nor the local Episcopal conference had a problem with it.

However, as you point out, if one asks what the Dicastery or some Vatican official what the Vatican's policy is: one will get the Vatican's "declared position" on this matter. Their REAL position in practice, seems to be a very different matter indeed.

ps: not sure in the whole of the Canton Eparchy, but in Canada there is a married presbyter of the Romanian Byz. Catholic Church serving (I know in that case, no dispensation was petition nor granted). Not only is he serving in a parish, but also serves as the official Catholic chaplain in a hospital.

clearly the reality of church polity and canon law is not just what is on paper. why it should be such, I don't know. I just know what is.

I can understand how confusing this must be to those who are not muddling about within the Catholic Communion. Should be logical and simple, yes, and yet, here we are (for ill and sometimes for good).

hope this helps.

ps
maybe looking at (what I am told by hearsay) how things operate in Italy (between law and praxis) may give one some idea....
--if this is not a good or appropriate example, I happily withdraw it with corresponding apologies.




Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Herbigny] #381279 06/09/12 03:30 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
DTBrown Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Herbigny,

I have never said that there's any problem with the Latin Church in the US, or Canada, I would imagine, over the ordination of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Nor have I heard if any dispensations were refused. Personally, I would guess that any problematic ordinands don't even get that far so the dispensations may be safely assumed. But, that's just my guess.

The case in Italy is different because the Romanian Catholic priests there are subject to the Latin ordinaries as there are not any parallel Romanian Catholic eparchies established in Italy.

I would hope that if there is a different procedure in place in the US and Canada where Eastern Catholic bishops freely ordain married men without following the USCCB protocol of getting the approval of Rome, that it becomes public knowledge. As it stands, the dispensation route communicates a bad message ecumenically to the Orthodox.

Last edited by DTBrown; 06/09/12 03:43 AM.
Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: DTBrown] #381295 06/09/12 02:11 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
The Ukrainian Greek Catholics in particular have advanced the concept of 'Orthodox in union with Rome.' If that is in fact how they view their own eccesiology, then the entire concept of 'dispensations' etc... is foreign to Orthodoxy and perhaps, as Herbigny has stated, his Hierarchs are engaging in a 'wink, wink; nod, nod' with those elements in the Curia and in Rome who view things differently.

Regardless of whether the Greek Catholics are in Italy or North American, D.T. Brown is absolutely correct in that the continuing type of comments as were made by the head of the Congregation last month are extremely distressing.

The North American Theological Consultation is going to take up this matter at its fall convocation as both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic representatives thereto expressed their strong concerns over these conflicting developments at the recently concluded session this month.

Re: Embracing Celibacy follow-up [Re: Paul B] #381304 06/09/12 03:14 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 556
Economos Roman V. Russo Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 556
It's not just Cardinal Sandri's ecclesial myopia that needs adjustment! Why have our Patriarchs and other Hierarchs not addressed Pope John Paul II's frequent and ill-advised statements (Sacerdotalis Coelibatus, Pastores Dabo Vobis and the like) that virtually contradict the bi-millennial tradition of the Church Universal (not to be confused with the local Roman Church) up through Vatican II on this subject. The Council solemnly taught that celibacy is not required of the essence of the priesthood. The late pope very nearly states the opposite. What do we hear from our leaders? The silence is deafening!

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3