www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West married priesthood byz catholics ruthenian vs other rites?

Hi Gordo,

I'm not sure that Darwinian is the metaphor I would use, but I'll let that go! (Pardon my lack of emoticon aptitude).

While I'm not fully up on, perhaps, what you call the ordo of the Church. I certainly have no problem with the idea that there are charitable efforts that can and should be undertaken by those who can help others. But I would hope that should not come at the expense of treating all as respected equals. And I don't think such charity should include jerry-rigged rules that are then to be subjected to the demands of further jerry-rigging when a particular situation doesn't produce a desired results.

I would assume and hope that bearing our respective crosses appropriately, as I have had to do, is also part of our reigning ordo.

Regards,
robster

Robster:

What are these "special rights, privileges, and lowered levels of responsibility" to which you refer?

Ryan

I should also add that while we are poor monetarily and in numbers, we are rich in tradition and spirituality.

Now if only we knew how to leverage those strengths...

Gordo

Yes - I was a little perplexed by that as well...

Gordo

The "more clergy per-capita" doesn't resonate as true for Byzantine Catholics of the BCA. We have always enjoyed a VERY high per-capita vocations that would make Roman bishops drool.

Mandatory celibacy is CANON LAW, not tradition. It is recommended and its a matter of choice. Pope Paul VI did say that he is capable of striking it off as mandatory celibacy was not divine law.

As for married priesthood, it should be as equally as acceptable as celibacy as I believe God has a purpose and vocation for both celibate and married priests to live out their ministry. God cannot be accused of double standards in decreeing "mandatory celibacy" for the Latin Rite and "married and celibate" for the Eastern Catholics.

Since Romans 8:28 says that everything works out for the good, why should this be any different?

I think the late Fr. Daniel Munn was one of those you so mentioned. He was an ex-Episcopalian priest and was founder of St. Ignatius of Antioch Melkite Greek Catholic Church in Georgia. At the same time, he was also the vicar for Holy Trinity Catholic Church, which obviously was Latin Rite. Of course, I am unsure of the process but he was basically ex-Episcopalian made biritual priest.

It is more than just a matter of law and discipline - it is, for good or ill, a Latin tradition. It could be changed, but I am not sure they need to do so.

As a radical moderate on this matter, I am of the opinion that a three-fold measure of "Retain/Restore/Relax" could be considered with mych fruit:

1) RETAIN western priestly celibacy while really re-examing and looking at our married diaconate to really fully utilize the great gifts these men have to offer.

2) RESTORE eastern married presbyterate where it has been impeded. (The idea that Latin Catholics would be scandalized in the US because there were a handfull of Ukranian or Maronite or Ruthenain Parishes with married priests... well The Latins have far more married clergy in the diaconate and former Anglicans than the Greek Catholics in America EVER did)

3) RELAX impediments that prevent and preclude married Latins with an inclination from seeking ordination and service to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Right now the Orthodox look on the Eastern Catholic communities and see them as Romans in Greek Robes. One of the sources of scandal they have is not only is are the traditions of the of ancient communities percieved to be suppressed, but the interaction between Latins and Orthodox that have entered into full Union with Rome seem rather subdued and suppressed. Want to prove we mean business about healing the schism? Allow a greater flow and interaction between the east and west (without the dillution of either) and the message will be sent.

The one thing I am baffled by is why the Roman Catholic traditionalists accuse Eastern Catholics of heresy for having married priests.

Is it true that the Council of Trullo was the first council of the Church to canonically allow married priests to have sexual relations with their wives? That's what the Trads are saying.

I don't know what the council said, but I think that it would better to say that what was already in practice was set down in the council to protect the rights of married preists in the Eastern Church, because of presure from the West. I don't really know the history, but ultra-Traditionalists have a tendency to twist history to fit their conception of Catholicism (this is true also of their approach to other Latin Catholics, if the Trads are in a fringe schismatic group). I think that they might actually accuse the East of being heretics on many other points, if they only knew...

There is often ignorance born of agenda, which we should be warry of when it obviously conflicts with what we know to be the historical tradition/ teaching.

On the point of sexual relations, I think that it might be the practice of the Latin Church today to disallow relations when a married convert, who was a minister in Protestantism, gets a dispensation to be a Priest in the Latin Rite. But, I don't think that this was ever the case in the East for parish priests, ever.

Rosemary

Dear Rosemary,

Except that there WERE restrictions (and still are) on marital relations the day before a priest is to celebrate the Liturgy - and from early times in the West, the Liturgy was much more a daily celebration than in much of the East.

Jeff

P.S. SimpleSinner - very well put.

Jeff,

Sorry, I know about those restrictions, but I wasn't thinking about them in the context of the question I was responding to (see quote in my previous post). It is of course true that the difference that there is the offering of the Mass everyday in the Latin Rite, and this leads to different requirements. I was just thinking more of the distance that the Latin Traditionalists may sometimes have from the Eastern Tradition, which leads them to accuse the East of heresy on the issue of married priests. It is a matter of lack of expreience of another tradition that leads them to judge it based on their perception of their own tradition (that can be correct of incorrect depending on the issue. I am thinking more broadly here, not just on the married preists issue.)

Sorry again, I didn't mean leave anything out on purpose.

God Bless,
Rosemary

They seem to ignore that Pius XII, the so-called last "Traditional Pope," granted permission for married German Lutheran pastors to be ordained as married Catholic priests during the 1950s. Also, I read somewhere that John XXIII received a married Old Catholic bishop into the Church and allowed him to keep his ministry.

Let us be more clear on who these "accusing traditionalists" are and how traditional they in fact may be considered!

I bet we read the same SSPX article on the matter. And I dismiss it out of hand as the end result of a "more Catholic than the pope" group who has taken (quite comfortably) to pontificating wildly on any number of such issues.

JS,

I'm sorry that's how things turned out for you. Bishop John is a great man and a great Bishop.

In my opinon, if a married man is pursued by his community and asked to be a priest, then they should all write the Bishop. The man and his wife should also write the Bishop. If the same excuse is given, it is a sad day for the Melkite Church.

You are right, it IS an insult to the Diaconate to suggest such a thing, however, the Hierarchs, I think, percieve themsleves as having thier hands tied in a way.

At the 2007 Melkite Convention, Dr. Fran Colie addressed the issue of married priests. According to her, the Melkite Church can have married priests in the USA because that is the tradition of Melkite Church.

His Grace Bishop Nicholas Samra is certainly spoke of being open to married men becoming priests at the 2003 Melkite Convention.

Father Thomas P. Steinmetz is a married priest, pastor of Our Lady of Cedars. He even transfered to the Melkite Chruch from the Roman Catholic Church. You can see his story here. See Our Clergy [home.comcast.net]

I am not familiar with the opinion of His Grace Archbishop Cyril. He is a wonderful Bishop and a great man of God. Unfortunately, a major concern it that we do not have a seminary. This poses a big obstacle to encouraging seminarians, married or celebate.

As for the whole issue, my theological opinion is decidedly Eastern. If a Bishop deems a man worthly of service and wishes to ordain him, whether he be a deacon or priest (major orders or minor orders), then ordain him.