Celibacy: east vs. west

[malphono]

I think we/they are just tired of the post-60’s experimentation. Permanent deacons are a ‘revivial’ or novelty, aren’t they? There’s enough to do getting an old rite Mass going in a parish, also. I don’t think a permanent deacon would be useful or necessary in such a circumstance, anyway(?)

It was a revival; for historical and liturgical reasons, it doesn’t fit in the “novelty” category.From my perspective, in theory, at least, it’s one of the few positive things from that era. Unfortunately, as I alluded to in my earlier post, the practice doesn’t always match-up with the theory insofar as the EF is concerned, and perhaps that’s where the problem lies.

Having a willing deacon available on a regular basis for the EF would, I think, be a blessing: it would, e.g., definitely increase the opportunity to have Solemn Mass.

 

[otjm]

[Looks it up] Sorry, it was said that there have always been married Catholic priests. But it’s an easy mistake to make. I regard it as an attempt to fudge the issue. *“Have there been any married Catholic priests? Then let’s have married Roman Catholic ones.” *

Nope. You missed it again. It is not “have there ever been any married Catholic priests”. to begin with, there have always been married Cathollic priests, just not in the Roman rite.

The issue is this: there are currently married men ordained and to be ordained in the Roman rite. and the question from the issue is this: should the rule requiring all men to be ordained in the Roman rite be celibate, which has been relaxed, be relaxed further.

I doubt the reverse would wash with Eastern Catholics.* “Is X the norm in the Roman Catholic Church? Then it should also be in Eastern Catholic Churches”. *

Agreed; however, your first premise was wrong.

[Edit] Pretty good article here. Seems celibacy is normal for over 1500 years, if I read it right.

Over history, there were repeated instances of calls to celibacy only. That in itself is evidence that it was not exclusive. As to norm, that may depend on how you define the term.

Hmm, perhaps I should have added the tag [irony] after my last post, but I thought it was fairly obvious.

Yes, it was obvious.

 

[otjm]

I think we/they are just tired of the post-60’s experimentation. Permanent deacons are a ‘revivial’ or novelty, aren’t they? There’s enough to do getting an old rite Mass going in a parish, also. I don’t think a permanent deacon would be useful or necessary in such a circumstance, anyway(?)

Revival does not equate with novelty.

And it would appear you know little about the office of deacon; a deacon would serve a parish very much in the same way whether it is an EF parish, and OF parish, or a blend of the two. The office of deacon is not defined by his participation in the Mass.

 

[otjm]

I’ve no idea where you may have heard that, but wherever it was and whoever said it, it’s wrong.

My recollection was that some of the discussion eminated from the Maronites. It is not an issue I am taking up; only an observation of another discussion. Someone else was splitting hairs; I was simply watching the razor…

 

[Aramis]

It was a revival; for historical and liturgical reasons, it doesn’t fit in the “novelty” category.From my perspective, in theory, at least, it’s one of the few positive things from that era. Unfortunately, as I alluded to in my earlier post, the practice doesn’t always match-up with the theory insofar as the EF is concerned, and perhaps that’s where the problem lies.

Having a willing deacon available on a regular basis for the EF would, I think, be a blessing: it would, e.g., definitely increase the opportunity to have Solemn Mass.

Because of the use of the missal as used in '62, the deacon’s liturgical role in the mass is non-extent outside the solemn high mass. (Dad just went through training on that; he’s a Roman Church Deacon.) I suspect that a new EF missal will be prepared… imposing the 1963 restoration of the deacon to Gospeller and minister of the Cup in the simpler subforms of the EF missal when present; many traditionalists seem to object to even that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Because of the use of the missal as used in '62, the deacon’s liturgical role in the mass is non-extent outside the solemn high mass. (Dad just went through training on that; he’s a Roman Church Deacon.) I suspect that a new EF missal will be prepared… imposing the 1963 restoration of the deacon to Gospeller and minister of the Cup in the simpler subforms of the EF missal when present; many traditionalists seem to object to even that.

They object because of some issue with the married permanent diaconate.

I really do not understand it.

IMHO a priest should never vest down to that of a deacon.

 

[malphono]

Because of the use of the missal as used in '62, the deacon’s liturgical role in the mass is non-extent outside the solemn high mass. (Dad just went through training on that; he’s a Roman Church Deacon.) I suspect that a new EF missal will be prepared… imposing the 1963 restoration of the deacon to Gospeller and minister of the Cup in the simpler subforms of the EF missal when present; many traditionalists seem to object to even that.

But of course there was a reason for that: Solemn Mass was and is the paradigm. One main reason why the Missa Cantata and Missa Lecta came about is due to the lack of ministers (in this case, read: deacons). There’s nothing (and never really was, despite what some will undoubtedly claim) to prevent even a layman from functioning in the role of subdeacon at Solemn Mass in case of necessity, so having a deacon handy (whether “transitional” or “permanent” is immaterial, and I don’t care one iota whether he’s married or not, as long as he’s a validly ordained deacon) is really all that’s needed for Solemn Mass.

 

[malphono]

They object because of some issue with the married permanent diaconate.

I really do not understand it.

I don’t understand it either. (Maybe this is becoming a habit : )

IMHO a priest should never vest down to that of a deacon.

Preferably not, but I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with it. It can’t really be thought demeaning when one considers that all priests were first ordained deacons, and that mark can never be obliterated.

 

[otjm]

Preferably not, but I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with it. It can’t really be thought demeaning when one considers that all priests were first ordained deacons, and that mark can never be obliterated.

True, and when I was serving at Solemn High Mass decades ago, a priest also vested down to sub deacon. Three priests; one in the roll of deacon, one in the foll of sub deacon.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t understand it either. (Maybe this is becoming a habit : )

A good habit at that!

Preferably not, but I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with it. It can’t really be thought demeaning when one considers that all priests were first ordained deacons, and that mark can never be obliterated.

I just don’t like it, especially when we have deacons available.

I won’t say where but at a Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom where a deacon was being ordained a priest vested down to that of an arch-deacon while we had deacons in their stoles sitting in the pews with us.

When deacons are available no priest should vest down.

 

[malphono]

A good habit at that!

Preferably not, but I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with it. It can’t really be thought demeaning when one considers that all priests were first ordained deacons, and that mark can never be obliterated.

And we agree again. It’s one thing when there is no ordained deacon present, but another entirely if there is. When an ordained deacon is present he should, by all means, always apprise his proper liturgical role. That principle applies East, West, and Orient.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And we agree again. It’s one thing when there is no ordained deacon present, but another entirely if there is. When an ordained deacon is present he should, by all means, always apprise his proper liturgical role. That principle applies East, West, and Orient.

This is off topic, but you do not accept private messages.

I can now respond better to our last “argument” as this has been posted to the Lake Elmo Carmelite Hermits website.

Hermits of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Scroll down to Our Liturgy.

 

[Seamus_L]

It should be pointed out that the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have some history of celibate priests at least in North America. I believe to this day that the Ruthenians do not ordain married men and the Maronite clergy may be at least half celibate. Is this necessarily a bad thing ? I think not, for the reason that outside their countries of origin in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, a married priesthood within the Catholic Church has the potential to be perceived as a compromise with the modern world.

 

[notredame_999]

It should be pointed out that the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have some history of celibate priests at least in North America. I believe to this day that the Ruthenians do not ordain married men and the Maronite clergy may be at least half celibate. Is this necessarily a bad thing ? I think not, for the reason that outside their countries of origin in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, a married priesthood within the Catholic Church has the potential to be perceived as a compromise with the modern world.

That logic is the same logic used by most latin catholics in the 1920’s and 1930’s…and as a result we lost hundreds of thousands of eastern catholics to the orthodox church in America. Why should the eastern rites be forced to hide their tradition out of convenience for the latin tradition?

 

[diggerdomer]

Y

Feeling a call to marriage and the priesthood in the Latin Church shows that your feeling is wrong…

What do you base that claim on?

Who are you to say what someone feels there calling is, is wrong? Did God say this?

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve no idea where you may have heard that, but wherever it was and whoever said it, it’s wrong.

My guess would be that this refers to the idea that Maronites claim they were never formally separated from the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. has opposed to previously-called “uniate” churches, that “came back” to communion with Rome following the Great Schism.

Sorry for any lapse or offensiveness in terms, I know “uniate” is likely not the best term to use, I’m simply referring to historical practices/terms/understandings.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry, it was said that there have always been married Catholic priests.

Yes, of course, there have been. But as otjm noted, no one here has claimed there have always been married Roman Catholic priests (though of course it’s important to note that married Roman Catholic priests pre-dated the later imposition of celibacy in the Roman Rite).

Pretty good article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy. Seems celibacy is normal for over 1500 years, if I read it right. /QUOTE}

Fortunately, the Church’s theology and canon law do not depend on wikipedia. Celibacy was not formally mandated, universally, for the Roman Catholic Church until the second millenium. So while it may have been “normal” for 1500 years or so, it was not a canonical requirement for that long. Regardless…there are plenty of examples of “normal” (for a long time) practices being changed. The Prayer of the Faithful and the homily at Mass are two good examples. They were not “normal” at Mass for almost 1500 years until the reforms following Vatican II restored them to the Liturgy. Or, on the other approach, acceptance of slavery was “normal” for well over 1500 years in the Catholic Church…but now it’s not.

So, that argument–such and such was normal for 1500 years – is not as “tight” as wikipedia may make it seem.

 

[diggerdomer]

It should be pointed out that the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have some history of celibate priests at least in North America. I believe to this day that the Ruthenians do not ordain married men and the Maronite clergy may be at least half celibate. Is this necessarily a bad thing ? I think not, for the reason that outside their countries of origin in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, a married priesthood within the Catholic Church has the potential to be perceived as a compromise with the modern world.

The reason for Eastern Rite celibacy in North America is due to disciplinary measures required by the Roman Catholic Church. It has nothing to do with the theology and practice of the Eastern Catholic Rites.

 

[Seamus_L]

Diggerdomer
To the best of my knowledge, that's no longer required by Rome and must now be considered self imposed. I believe most of the other Eastern Rites with the exception of the Melkites, have a much higher rate of celibate priests than the Orthodox.

 

[Layman]

What do you base that claim on?

Who are you to say what someone feels there calling is, is wrong? Did God say this?

This was answered earlier in the thread. God doesn’t call you to a vocation you can’t lawfully fulfill; in this case marriage and priesthood in the Roman Catholic church.