Can a former Anglican minister now a R. C. Married Priest be the main presider at Mass?

[Aramis]

i was in the episcopal and anglican churches before i became a convert to roman catholicism.

one of our episcopal priests was married with children and he became a roman catholic last year and he is on his way to becoming a roman catholic priest. i was told that the only difference for him being a convert to the faith and a married priest was that he could not have his own parish. as others stated, he can only be associate priest or pastor.

if anyone believes differently, please post because i am relatively new to this.

It is discouraged for bishops to appoint former protestants as pastors, not forbidden. Most won’t until they have been associates for some time.

Even though they have converted, their theology may not be fully Catholic for some time. A period of supervised service is appropriate. When possible, most priests will spend some time as an assistant pastor, so that the bishop can learn through the pastor they assist their readiness for a parish of their own, and further, to see how to run a parish.

 

[7_Sorrows]

i agree. it does take awhile for their theology to become fully catholic.

before becoming roman catholic, i thought since i was episcopalian i was very close to being catholic, but i soon learned that being anglican is very different from being roman catholic.

this man must live for two years as a roman catholic before he can be ordained. he has had to go through a long process to become a priest, but i know that he knows that he made the right decision leaving the episcopal church and converting to roman catholicism. i think he will make a wonderful roman catholic priest.

 

[Frosty]

The previous pastor of my parish was a Presbyterian minister before he converted to the Catholic Church. His wife died when their six children were still quite young, They are grown up now and have children of their own. Anyway, he was the pastor at my parish for five years and pastor at another one for six. I don’t know here he was before that except that he has been a Roman Catholic priest now for over twenty years. He was an excellent pastor and never, ever let his personal family life interfere with his pastoral duties. A year ago, one of his granddaughters was seriously ill and for awhile the doctors were not sure if she would live. This went on for almost a month. Father never cancelled so much as a parish planning meeting nor was he unavailable to parishoners at any time. He is a special man and we were fortunate to have him as pastor as long as we did.

 

[jc-servant]

I was thinking of the Orthodox. Sorry. I just pray that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow it. Ever. This is the way it had been decided almost a1000 years ago, and this is what we should be doing. It works. It is a full commitment. To be a Father to the Church at large and a husband to Her. Difficult if one is a father and husband to an earthly family. The consecration of a R. C. Priest is so holy as to exclude him from the world. In the world but not of the world, isn’t that how it goes?

What your posts sound like is that you want to decide what is or is not appropriate and proper instead of the Magesterium. If any Holy Father wants to change any discipline, it is within his power and we as faithful Catholics need to toe the line even it changes 5 times in our lifetime. It does not matter if our opinion is that something else (all celibate priests for example) might be better. The authority in this matter rests with the Holy Father who knows better than anyone of us what should or should not be a current discipline.

I found some of your statements insulting to our eastern Catholic brethern who are fully in communion with the Holy Father but whose liturgy and disciplines are not always the same as in the west. No one part of the “true” church is better than another and we should not be making statements that our way (in any period in history or currently) is better than their way! None of us is the Vicar of Christ whose job it is to decide such things.

 

[Digitonomy]

What your posts sound like is that you want to decide what is or is not appropriate and proper instead of the Magesterium. If any Holy Father wants to change any discipline, it is within his power and we as faithful Catholics need to toe the line even it changes 5 times in our lifetime. It does not matter if our opinion is that something else (all celibate priests for example) might be better.

At least in what you quoted, I did not read CMP2 trying to supersede the Magesterium, only voicing his opinion and prayers for what he thought best, which he is entitled to do.

jc-servant:

No one part of the “true” church is better than another and we should not be making statements that our way (in any period in history or currently) is better than their way! None of us is the Vicar of Christ whose job it is to decide such things.

It would be foolhardy to deny that some disciplines are better than others, and that goes not just for a single church but for one church compared with another. It may not always be charitable to bring up ones opinion on such matters, but that doesn’t mean we are not entitled to such an opinion, or that the opinion is necessarily wrong.

 

[otjm]

Under current discipline for the Latin Church, a priest who was accepting into Holy Orders as a convert minister may be an Associate Pastor ( this is probably where your confusion is from).

An Associate Pastor (also called a Parochial Vicar) is simply an additional priest assigned to the parish. One priest is the Pastor, who oversees the parish, any Associates are priests who assist with the Sacramental care ( Mass, Baptisms, Confessions etc…)

The priest you mention would be an Associate Pastor.

As such, he may do everything any other associate pastor may do. Including hearing confessions, saying a parish Mass ect…

One thing to remember is that there has been no point in history where the Catholic Church has been without married clergy. The Eastern Catholic Churches have always had them. So there has been no change in the theology of Holy Orders, only with discipline in the Latin side of the Catholic Church.

do you have any spedcific citation that upholds that? I ask, because we have a married priest who is the pastor at a parish; that may be in part that we don’t have the luxury of having two priests at a parish in many, if not almost all circumstances.

 

[otjm]

Why can’t a convert who is a married man not become a Priest then.

they do it all the time.

Does it revolve around a Minister being out of work?

No.

Just because he was a Minister in another Church does this warrant his becoming a Roman Catholic Priest?

Absolutely not.

Why not stay as a Deacon.

1. he was not a deacon; that is a specific ordination in the Catholic Church. He was a layman because the Church does not recognize his “ordination” as a sacramaent. 2) the vocation to the permanent diaconate is a separate and distinct vocation from priesthood. It is obvious that they ahve discerned a vocation to the priesthood, and the Church has called them to it.

Another question: If the E. Church allows married Priests why not become an Eastern Rite Priest then?

Because he converted to the Roman rite. Tghat is the rite he chose. One does not get shuffled off to a rite because one is married and may, after converting, have a calling to the priesthood.

Last question: When did the Celibate Priesthood become a Law in our Church?
Please forgive my ignorance but I am looking for an answer. I love our Church and do not want her to “compromise” her beauty.

Around 1000 AD or thereabouts; there were periods before that in which some areas geographically may have required celibacy within the Roman Rite

The Church’s beauty does not reside in the celibacy of it s priests; it resides in Christ, and His Truth.

 

[otjm]

What would keep this problem from recurring with our “new” married clergy?

The simple fact that if one is baptized a Roman rite Catholic, one cannot be ordained if one is married - which stops the nepotism issue dead in its tracks; their children will not be ordained. Coupled with that is that the legal arrangement of the Church today is not the same as it was 1000 years ago.

I know I am chewing this to death, but there is nothing to convince us (I am not the only one concerned) that this is right.

I agree whole heartedly that you are. You are over-wrought on an issue that is miniscule and will most likely remain the same. The Church since its foundation has had married preists and celibate priests. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with married priests, and you are finding problems where there are none. You are trying to find abuse where there is none. You are not naming what this abuse supposedly is, and are impliedly attacking the sanctity and holiness of men who, having converted, have been ordained while being married; and by futher implication, are impugning those priests in the Eastern rites who are married. The exception is nowhere near the norm; there are extremely few men who were ministers who have been ordained into the Roman rite. We are not even talking of 1% of all Roman rite priests in the US; not .1%, not.01%.

 

[otjm]

Celibate Priesthood is the ultimate Priesthood. The full sacrifice of oneself to the Bride. How can a man have two Brides. Or a woman two Spouses. The reason for Celibacy.

That presumes that celibacy is intrinsic to the priessthood. The Catholic church does not and never has taught that. It has taught that the vocation to celibacy is a separate and distinct vocation - that is why we have professed religious - we call them brothers - who take the vow of celibacy but are never ordained.

The vocation to the priesthood is a separate vocation. And as the Church has publicly witnessed for 2000 years, married priests are just as much priests as those who are not married. There is a good bit of discussion, particularly from priests, and most particularly from Rome, that would have you believe that somehow, just somehow, those who are married and ordained are not as “good” or as “holy” or as “priestly” as those who are celibate.

Given the priestly scandal of homosexual priests who are celibate - but not chaste - one would thing that the posturing over celibacy would tone down a bit.

Christ was celibate, and being celibate is an imitation of Christ. And for 2000 years we have had a priesthood which has had room in it for both married men and celibate men.

There is no such thing as “Ultimate” priesthood; one either is a priest or isn’t. The fullness of the priestly vocation is in the ordination of a bishop (a priest serves as an extension of the bishop to the faithful). The fullness of priestly vocation is not determined by celibacy or non-celibacy (marriage). Anything to the contrary is not in keeping with the lived faith fo the Church for 2000 years.

 

[otjm]

**

Where is the writ on the absolute ruling on Married Priests. ** There is no such thing as a writ, nor an absolute ruling. It is a disciplinary rule that can be changed, and in fact has been.
CMP2;4273519:

To say it is up to the Bishop, or to say that it is open to the whim of the Holy See is to set the Rule of Holy Orders on sandy base and not on the Rock.

It is not a whim, and I don’t know where you got the idea that it was. It is a slow process of discernment on a case-by-case basis. The mere fact that one was a minister prior to converting is no guarantee that he will be ordained.

To say that the Married Priesthood was in existance until 1100 is defeating this argument. There must have been a reason (the Holy Spirit?) for abolishing it.

The Holy Spirit did not abolish it. Within the Roman rite a rule was made in the face of a widesperead problem. That may or may not have been due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and by what reasoning do you presume to tell the Holy Spirit (assuming that it was such a guidance) that the Holy Spirit cannot determine that the need for the rule no longer exists? Further, assuming that it was due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit most notably failed to tell the pope that he had to do this for the universal Church, because the Eastern rites were not let in on the secret.

Which means it has been abolished for nearly 1000 years. Same good argument, No?
God bless

No, lousy argument.

 

[otjm]

Something else to consider is the fact that as Catholics, we demand a lot of our priests. The 3AM calls when a person is dying in the hospital, the counseling sessions that often go past dinner time, the early morning Masses, the visits to the prisons, the sick calls, and other aspects of the ministry of a priest could very well take a toll on a marriage, if one were to have existed.

Speaking as a woman, I don’t think that I could live like that.

The same can be said for a woman married to a doctor.

Furthermore, the wife would be held under a microscope and be on constant guard. Every facet of her life and the lives of the children she and her husband are trying to rear would be in a fishbowl. Let’s say she decides to go to Macy’s and her husband gets criticized for spending the collection plate on her suits and makeup. Her life would not be her own. And a career? That would probably not work out too well because even that would be scrutiinzed. Furthermore, there is also the issue of instability because the priest’s family would also be having to move constantly, especially, as in the case of my diocese, they would could only stay in one place 12 years at the most and the family couldn’t own any property, except maybe the car.

Well, women have been doing that for 2000 years. There are many other circumstances where a woman is wife to someone who is in a high profile position and she is scrutinized. You are right that it may not be something that some - or many - women would want, and any married man that is going to be ordained is either already aware of this issue (because her husband was a minister and is converting) or she has been in a faith community where this was already a reality - an Eastern rite community.

The argument that a priest just couldn’t do his ministry properly if he were married has been trotted out repeatedly; yet the Church has had married clergy for 2000 years and they seem to have managed. The same can be said for doctors (as to your 3 a.m. comment) as well as anyone charged with dealing with an emergency (police come immediately to mind - as a lieutenant); as well as the wives of other professionals who don’t have and won’t have an 8 to 5 job Monday through Friday. Ask any wife who is married to someone who travels in their job… the list goes on and on.

 

[otjm]

Unfortunately the discipline seems rather undisciplined and random. Lets just get back to the great thing and follow the ONE true Church. Especially as we belong to it.

Ther ONE true Church includes the Eastern rites.

 

[otjm]

As it is not a “rule”, or a “dogma” and is up to the whims of the times and can be changed as it is only a “law”, then why do I have to obey it? See the problem? Constant confusion.

No, I do not see the problem. There is nothing for you to “obey”, as you are not going to be ordained as long as you are married.

Since it appears that you are a convert, it appears that you are raising some issues to the level of doctrine; they are not. The issue of a celibate clergy is one of them. Welcome to the Church; I can understand how you may be confused, but it would appear that the confusion is due to lack of understanding, or what you were either told (whcih was incorrect) or what you presumed.

As a matter of fact, it is a rule, it is not a dogma (which is a matter of faith, e.g. Christ was truly human and truly God). Through the centuries the Church has made rules as it saw fit at the time; and it has changed rules as it saw fit. The rules are not immutable; is someone told you that, they lied.

 

[otjm]

Difficult if one is a father and husband to an earthly family. The consecration of a R. C. Priest is so holy as to exclude him from the world. In the world but not of the world, isn’t that how it goes?

And what are you saying about amrriede men - that they are to be of the world? St Paul said some things that would appear to have nobody married except those who were so driven by lust that they couldn’t help themselves. that makes for a rather interesting view of the sacrament of marriage, would you not agree? It certainly is not the Church’s position about marriage.

And you need to get around a bit more; I ahve met some holy priests, and I have personally known several who have been removed from the priesthood for sexual abuse. let’s not wax eloquent about the holiness of priests. They are an Alter Christus, which I accept; some better than others in representing that theological aspect of priesthood. And I have met mearried men who are a whole lot holiert than some priests I have known. You are making this an emotional issue; it is not.

 

[Chatter163]

You’re right: it is a discipline. The pope can change any discipline of the church, after consultation with the bishops.

A pope is not obligated to consult with the bishops. While I agree that it is theologically sound for him to do so, and prudent in this day and age, he certainly is not obligated to do so. Even canon law recognizes this.

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

 

[Aramis]

A pope is not obligated to consult with the bishops. While I agree that it is theologically sound for him to do so, and prudent in this day and age, he certainly is not obligated to do so. Even canon law recognizes this.

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

You do not appear to understand the terms used. Ordinary power is that of a bishop. Nothing more.

It being full: the pope has the same rights as the local ordinary.
Immediate: he can exercise them without hesitation; the local ordinary also has immediate juridiction.
universal: in every diocese.

The pope can thus act in loco episcopos in any diocese, granting or denying those things the local bishop may grant or deny.

A metropolitan archbishop has immediate jurisdiction in all his suffragan dioceses. A patriarch has full, immediate jurisdiction in all the dioceses subject to him.
The Pope’s jurisidiction is full and immediate throughout the church. But it is not unlimited.

No pope may deny previously defined dogma. No pope changes doctrine without conferring with the bishops (tho this may not be visible to the layman). Disciplines are changed regularly… but every case I’m aware of has included consultation with the bishops… perhaps not all, but at least a relevant body of them.

The ancient canons of the Ecumenical Councils still hold force… and a head bishop is not to act without consent of the synod, nor the synod act without consent of the head bishop.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

This situation that a married former Anglican minister can become a validly ordained Catholic priest can throw up some strange and sad scenarios. Last year I attended a wedding in the UK of one of my godsons - the son of friends I met in my university days. Also attending was another friend from those days,the groom’s godfather. This man was ordained 26 years ago but resigned the ministry after 6 years, not over celibacy although he is now married with four sons. His entire family was with him at the wedding.Several requests to be laicised were refused and his marriage is a civil one only. Neither he nor his wife can receive the sacraments. Nevertheless, they are bringing their sons (ages, 17, 15, 12 and 10) up in the Church and are faithful Catholics in every other respect. They sat just in front of me at the ceremony and I couldn’t help the wave of sadness that washed over me as the four boys received Communion while their parents remained kneeling in the pew.

The bride’s uncle officiated at the marriage. He was a former Anglican minister, married (his wife also converted), and is now an ordained Catholic priest. His wife read at the Mass and his children, two boys and a girl, were the altar servers. Isn’t life strange?

 

[malphono]

At least in what you quoted, I did not read CMP2 trying to supersede the Magesterium, only voicing his opinion and prayers for what he thought best, which he is entitled to do.It would be foolhardy to deny that some disciplines are better than others, and that goes not just for a single church but for one church compared with another. It may not always be charitable to bring up ones opinion on such matters, but that doesn’t mean we are not entitled to such an opinion, or that the opinion is necessarily wrong.

I’m not sure what you’re saying: does that mean you interpret the Roman Rite discipline to be superior to that of the various Eastern Rites? If so, you’re sadly mistaken. No question that you are entitled to your opinion, which it is simply that: an opinion. But in this case it would be wrong.

If that’s not what you meant, perhaps it might help if you clarify.

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m not sure what you’re saying: does that mean you interpret the Roman Rite discipline to be superior to that of the various Eastern Rites? If so, you’re sadly mistaken. No question that you are entitled to your opinion, which it is simply that: an opinion. But in this case it would be wrong.

I mean to say that CMP2 is entitled to that opinion.

It may be that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and every discipline of every church sui iuris is ideally suited for that church at present. However, it is reasonable to conclude otherwise, and to opine on which disciplines are better and worse. Just because one obeys the Church, doesn’t mean he has to agree with it about every discipline.

 

[malphono]

I mean to say that CMP2 is entitled to that opinion.

It may be that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and every discipline of every church sui iuris is ideally suited for that church at present. However, it is reasonable to conclude otherwise, and to opine on which disciplines are better and worse. Just because one obeys the Church, doesn’t mean he has to agree with it about every discipline.

Thanks for clarifying. Now I see you’re meaning, and while I agree in principle, I will add that unless someone of one Church sui juris has some knowledge of the discipline and practices of another church sui juris, he should (at least publicly) state as much. What often happens is that Roman Rite folks make general statements that ignore the existence of the Eastern Rites and their lawful disciplines.