the married Chrisitans cannot be the priest?

[Deacon Lance]

Why can't the married Christians be the priests in Catholic Church?

They can.  An unmarried presbyterate is a discipline of the Latin Catholic Church, but they have exceptions.  Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches have a married presbyterate just as their Orthodox counterparts.

And the Pittsburgh Eparchy of the Ruthenians has ordained how many married men to the priesthood?  I know one or two have been ordained in other eparchies.  But it's not the standard practice yet and yinz have had a long time since Data cum fuerit ( I think that's the name of it).

None ordained but we do have a few ministering.

[ialmisry]

Why can't the married Christians be the priest in Catholic Church?

Because the Western Church has always had a perverted view of marriage.

Unfortunately, when I look at the annulment situation in the RCC, I have to agree with your opinion here. A while back, a beautiful Lutheran lady appeared on the "60 minutes" program. She said that she had married a Roman Catholic man about 16 years ago and she agreed to raise her children Catholics, which she did. She followed all the Catholic rules and married the Catholic man in the Catholic Church according to the Catholic ceremony. Then after 15 years of marriage, her husband had been unfaithful to the marriage and became involved with a younger woman. He then wanted out of the marriage and applied for an annulment which he then got. The Lutheran lady said that she is suing the Catholic Church for fraud and deception as the Catholic Church had deceived her for 15 years leaving her with the impression that she was married, whereas now, after 15 or so years, the Catholic Church says that she was never married validly or sacramentally. Why then did they require that she go through all of the Catholic ceremony and require her to promise to raise her children as Catholics, when she was never really married in the first place. This was mendacious and fraudulent according to her lawsuit against the RCC  and according to her testimony on the program. She that that this process of annulment would never have come up, except for the fact that her husband had been unfaithful to the marriage. She said that she was OK with a divorce, which declares that there was a marriage, but now they wanted to break up and divorce, but that she was not OK with the idea that for all these years she was never married sacramentally. She said that this annulment idea was a huge insult to her character as a Christian and as a Lutheran, since she never would live with a man without being officially, validly and sacramentally married to him in the eyes of God. Sixteen (approximately) years ago,  the RCC  had her go through a Catholic ceremony and mendaciously and falsely declared that she was married and this was a huge fraud to get her to live with a man for 15 years without being married to him. Now according to the complaint,  the authorities of the RCC say that there was no marriage in the first place.

Needless to say, I hope she wins the lawsuit.  Case law suggests she might.

[ialmisry]

Where in the Scriptures is that? St Peter himself was married.

Isn't the Roman Catholic practice of not allowing Priests to marry actually closer to the Apostolic Tradition opposed to the Orthodox practice of allowing them to marry? The Scriptures make it very clear that a Priest is to be a single man. Why do we allow Priests to marry?

Are we going with sola scriptura when it's convenient? I'm not sure how crucial scriptural backing is when speaking of disciplines rather than doctrines or dogmas.

JamesR made a sola scriptura argument for the Vatican's mandated celibacy.  We just showed no such basis can be found in the Scriptura.

[Deacon Lance]

After the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch had ordained a married man as a priest in his diocese, he got a letter from Pope Paul VI in 1978 which declared that the ordination was illicit and that the priestly faculties were removed. It was reported that the Pope said that he suspended the application of the general principle of preservation of Eastern traditions. If the Pope decides to suspend an official agreement with the Eastern Catholic Churches to preserve their traditions, then should the Orthodox be somewhat dubious or wary about a reunion with Rome?
See: http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/repost-can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests-2/[/quote]

The same thing happened in Canada in 1988.  The priests are serving.  If you read the article in full you will see Rome no longer even bothers wth suspensions they just ignore it.  A lot of it depends on how much a bishop is willing to stand up to Rome.  Those that have not backed down Rome leaves alone. 

Of course the Orthodox should be dubious.  But I suppose the Pope and Curia know the chances of reunion are somewhere around nil so they worry about how the 99% of the Church will be affected by the 1%.  I don't think it is right and on principle alone Rome should declare we have the right to ordain married men anywhere.

[podkarpatska]

One of our priests from ACROD, Fr. James Dutko, represented the Orthodox position at the recent seminar held in Rome last month, sponsored by the Australian Catholic University and the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies at St Paul University in Ottawa, Canada. Fr. Jim's account of the seminar, and excerpts from his presentation, is found at " Mandated Celibacy Among US Eastern Catholic Priests Theme of Seminar in Rome" http://acrod.org/news/releases/rome-conference

The crux of Father Jim's presentation mirrored what Deacon Lance wrote - How can the Orthodox trust Rome on serious theological matters under discussion when Rome can not keep its word to her own Eastern Churches regarding the disciplinary, non-dogmatic rule of celibacy or non-celibacy among the clergy? Perhaps of more importance to the Orthodox is how long can honest and faithful  Eastern Catholics continue to reward the Vatican with loyalty when they are continually treated like the odd stepchild? Rome has never understood how critical this issue is to her Eastern Catholics for to them the celibacy issue is the canary in the mine shaft - a warning of the true intentions of many within the Roman Church and a sign of cultural imperialism being exercised by Rome under the guise of theology or even doctrine.

Frankly, there is a movement troubling to the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics now underway within some 'conservative' segments of the Roman church to attempt to 'validate' the statementas referenced earlier in this thread by James R regarding celibacy and the Apostolic priesthood. It was rumored that Seminarians from the Russicum and the Oriental Institute (the colleges of the Vatican University dedicated to the studies of the Eastern Church) were discouraged from attending the seminar, although many did attend. Also, one of the presenters, Fr. Basil Petra, a Latin-rite priest and a professor of theology at the Catholic University at Florence is a strong advocate in defense of the married presbyteriate and his works, while available in Florence are 'proscribed'(i.e. 'banned')  within Rome itself.

As to the argument that in countries where the Latin Rite is the overwhelming majority of Catholics that allowing the married clergy of the 'Easterners' to exist would somehow 'scandalize' the Roman faithful - that is absurd. So - the Polish Catholics can't handle married Greek Catholic priests but say the Slovak or Czech Roman Catholics can handle it? My cousin is a married Greek Catholic priest in Plsen, Czech Republic - are the Roman Catholics there somehow 'superior' to those in say, Pittsburgh or Warsaw? Nothing has changed since the days of St. Alexis and Archbishop Ireland and Bishop Orestes Chornock and Bishop Basil Takach.

[stanley123]

...Rome should declare we have the right to ordain married men anywhere.

What happens if Rome does not declare such and suspends an official agreement made with Eastern Catholics to preserve the traditions of the Eastern Church?

[Cyrillic]

and suspends an official agreement made with Eastern Catholics to preserve the traditions of the Eastern Church?

 

[Peter J]

Why can't the married Christians be the priests in Catholic Church?

You've got it backwards. Married non-Christians are the ones who can't be priests in the Catholic Church.

[podkarpatska]

...Rome should declare we have the right to ordain married men anywhere.

What happens if Rome does not declare such and suspends an official agreement made with Eastern Catholics to preserve the traditions of the Eastern Church?

It happened at least twice in North America. Then you get the OCA, via the Metropolia  and ACROD following the path set out upon by St. Alexis and many others.

[Peter J]

Married men can become priests in both the Eastern and Western Churches. It's not as common in the West as in the East but it does happen. Usually in the West it's because a married priest in another church converted. For example, we have a married Romanian Catholic priest at our church, who converted from Romanian Orthodoxy.

However, priests must be married *before* they're ordained, in both East and West. A single priest can't just go out and join Match.com, AFAIK.

Good grief - ok just to clarify, this Romanian Catholic priest converted from Romanian Orthodox. He's still Romanian,  not Roman.

FWIW, I didn't get what Michal was complaining about. Even if the priest did become Roman-Rite Catholic (Latin Catholic) that would not be a violation of canon law. (Apparently, Michal, you want all Catholic converts-from-Orthodoxy to be forced to join an Eastern Catholic Church. Eh?   )

But I do have a different objection: it seems to me (although admittedly I don't know the priest in question) that reason he can be a married priest is because he's an Eastern Catholic, NOT because he's ex-Orthodox.

[ialmisry]

Married men can become priests in both the Eastern and Western Churches. It's not as common in the West as in the East but it does happen. Usually in the West it's because a married priest in another church converted. For example, we have a married Romanian Catholic priest at our church, who converted from Romanian Orthodoxy.

However, priests must be married *before* they're ordained, in both East and West. A single priest can't just go out and join Match.com, AFAIK.

Good grief - ok just to clarify, this Romanian Catholic priest converted from Romanian Orthodox. He's still Romanian,  not Roman.

FWIW, I didn't get what Michal was complaining about. Even if the priest did become Roman-Rite Catholic (Latin Catholic) that would not be a violation of canon law. (Apparently, Michal, you want all Catholic converts-from-Orthodoxy to be forced to join an Eastern Catholic Church. Eh?   )

That is the rule that the Vatican has set up.

But I do have a different objection: it seems to me (although admittedly I don't know the priest in question) that reason he can be a married priest is because he's an Eastern Catholic, NOT because he's ex-Orthodox.

The sharply worded rebuke the Italian Conference of Bishops sent to their Romanian Major-Archbishop says otherwise.

[Michał Kalina]

FWIW, I didn't get what Michal was complaining about. Even if the priest did become Roman-Rite Catholic (Latin Catholic) that would not be a violation of canon law. (Apparently, Michal, you want all Catholic converts-from-Orthodoxy to be forced to join an Eastern Catholic Church. Eh?  )

It will be. Members of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Nestorian Churches who convert to the Roman Church are obliged by Roman Canon Law to join the Eastern Rite Church corresponding to the one they leave.

[Peter J]

Married men can become priests in both the Eastern and Western Churches. It's not as common in the West as in the East but it does happen. Usually in the West it's because a married priest in another church converted. For example, we have a married Romanian Catholic priest at our church, who converted from Romanian Orthodoxy.

However, priests must be married *before* they're ordained, in both East and West. A single priest can't just go out and join Match.com, AFAIK.

Good grief - ok just to clarify, this Romanian Catholic priest converted from Romanian Orthodox. He's still Romanian,  not Roman.

FWIW, I didn't get what Michal was complaining about. Even if the priest did become Roman-Rite Catholic (Latin Catholic) that would not be a violation of canon law. (Apparently, Michal, you want all Catholic converts-from-Orthodoxy to be forced to join an Eastern Catholic Church. Eh?   )

That is the rule that the Vatican has set up.

The "rule that the Vatican has set up" allows a convert to request to join a different sui iuris church. So even if the priest in question had joined the Latin Church (although of course theistgal has clarified that that isn't what happened) it wouldn't justify Michal saying that "that is a violation of Roman Catholic canon law".

[Michał Kalina]

Really?

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

[Peter J]

Really?

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Did you read the whole quote?

[ialmisry]

Really?

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Did you read the whole quote?

Since he posted the entire canon, evidently yes.

[TheMathematician]

Really?

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Did you read the whole quote?

Even if an Orthodox Christian becomes catholic, he is still a member of his sui  iuris that corresponds to his former Orthodox Church. Stop. Peroid. End of Story.

Even if he does everything in the latin church, he is still by rule eastern catholic

[theistgal]

I don't know what any of this has to do with the OP's original question, though. 

[biro]

I am sort of hoping the RCC will allow married priests in all of its aegis before too long. I've always kinda wanted to go to a deacon's wedding.

[theistgal]

Really?

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Did you read the whole quote?

Even if an Orthodox Christian becomes catholic, he is still a member of his sui  iuris that corresponds to his former Orthodox Church. Stop. Peroid. End of Story.

Even if he does everything in the latin church, he is still by rule eastern catholic

Yes, at first, but he may then request permission from the bishop if he wants to switch to another sui iuris rite, just as any other Catholic may.

[Shanghaiski]

I am sort of hoping the RCC will allow married priests in all of its aegis before too long. I've always kinda wanted to go to a deacon's wedding.

Could deacons even get married under RCC rules? They cannot under Orthodox.

In college, I heard an RCC priest say how he'd prefer single women priests to married priests. His justification had something to do with time commitments.

[LBK]

In college, I heard an RCC priest say how he'd prefer single women priests to married priests. His justification had something to do with time commitments.

This is just so full of WRONG and IGNORANT that I don't know where to start .... 

[TheMathematician]

I am sort of hoping the RCC will allow married priests in all of its aegis before too long. I've always kinda wanted to go to a deacon's wedding.

Could deacons even get married under RCC rules? They cannot under Orthodox.

In college, I heard an RCC priest say how he'd prefer single women priests to married priests. His justification had something to do with time commitments.

they cant, but married men may become deacons

[Michał Kalina]

Yes, at first, but he may then request permission from the bishop if he wants to switch to another sui iuris rite, just as any other Catholic may.

From both bishops or the Pope (unless there are no bishops for two rites in the area).

[Peter J]

Really?

Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Did you read the whole quote?

Even if an Orthodox Christian becomes catholic, he is still a member of his sui  iuris that corresponds to his former Orthodox Church. Stop. Peroid. End of Story.

Even if he does everything in the latin church, he is still by rule eastern catholic

Yes, at first, but he may then request permission from the bishop if he wants to switch to another sui iuris rite, just as any other Catholic may.

Actually, TheMathematician's statement isn't even true "at first". At least, not in every case b/c sometimes a convert is permitted to immediately join a different sui iuris church.

[Michał Kalina]

Actually, TheMathematician's statement isn't even true "at first". At least, not in every case b/c sometimes a convert is permitted to immediately join a different sui iuris church.

Proofs? I'm asking because your canon law says otherwise.

[theistgal]

But just like in your church, canon law can be tweaked for pastoral reasons, on a case-by-case basis, because ultimately every convert is an individual. It's the bishop's decision, not just an automatic thing.

[Michał Kalina]

"Pastoral resons" = "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"?

[ialmisry]

"Pastoral resons" = "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"?

Don't the shepherds lead the lambs to slaughter?

[Peter J]

"Pastoral resons" = "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"?

So, do you think that allowing converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism to choose which sui iuris church to join is "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"? Wow.

[Peter J]

Actually, TheMathematician's statement isn't even true "at first". At least, not in every case b/c sometimes a convert is permitted to immediately join a different sui iuris church.

Proofs?

I've been told not to "cross-post", i.e. quote things that were said on a different forum.

I'm asking because your canon law says otherwise.

Could you quote the canon law that says that no convert to Catholicism can ever be permitted to join a church sui iuris other than the default one?

[Michał Kalina]

So, do you think that allowing converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism to choose which sui iuris church to join is "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"? Wow.

Forcing them to join Latin Rite is diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches.

I've been told not to "cross-post", i.e. quote things that were said on a different forum.

I don't think this will be the case here. Of course you can PM me them, too.

Could you quote the canon law that says that no convert to Catholicism can ever be permitted to join a church sui iuris other than the default one?

Converts to Roman Catholicism from Eastern Churches (EO, OO or Nestorian) are obliged to join their respective rites unless they have a permission from Pope to do otherwise. They also can change their sui iuris Church later but that requires approval from two bishops or a Pope.

That is theory. In practice, most of them join Latin Rite Church. That example shows the attitude of Vatican to its Eastern minions and their secondary position in happy Roman family.

[theistgal]

"Pastoral resons" = "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"?

Don't the shepherds lead the lambs to slaughter?

And a Merry Christmas to both of you as well. 

[Peter J]

So, do you think that allowing converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism to choose which sui iuris church to join is "diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches"? Wow.

Forcing them to join Latin Rite is diminishing the role of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Forcing them to join the Latin Rite?  I'm guessing that even Isa doesn't know what you talking about now.

[Peter J]

Converts to Roman Catholicism from Eastern Churches (EO, OO or Nestorian) are obliged to join their respective rites unless they have a permission from Pope to do otherwise.

(emphasis added)

Thank you. Sometimes on this forum I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall(s). It's nice to see the occasional evidence that I'm not.

[Peter J]

THe unsourced assumption that I shall make, because i believe it to be true from what I have read: A married priest will never be the pastor of a parish, because something makes him ineligible to do so. Assistant priest, yes, pastor, no.

I don't believe that's true.

[Peter J]

It's really more like guidelines. Still, they must stick to the code.

Hang the code.

[Peter J]

It's easier to get advice from a married man on your marriage than it is to get marriage advice from a 23 year old "celibate" priest.

Okay, but what about a 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies?

[Kra-nion]

#.. someone had to....1tim.4;1-4...........did you?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: the married Chrisitans cannot be the priest?