M
Madaglan
Guest
In most of the Eastern Churches, the calling to marriage is not mutually exclusive to the calling to the priesthood. An Eastern Christian can have both a calling to marriage and a calling to the priesthood.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s the point that Br. David and I are trying to explain. The call is to the one priesthood of Jesus Christ, whether you are Roman, Eastern or Orthodox. However, the conditions for the call are not the same, because the Church has the power to bind and unbind.
The Church has bound that only those men who are celibate can be called to the priesthood in the Roman Rite. What changes is the condition.
Even in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches, the married man can be called to be a deacon or priest, but a deacon or priest cannot be called to get married. Bishops are always celibate. That takes care of them. Even there, there are conditions. You must be called to marriage first, then Holy Orders, not the other way around.
For many Romans this the difference between the call to the one priesthood, but the different circumstances and conditions under which Christ calls, is a difficult concept. I think that the Eastern Rites and Orthodox Church understand this a little better, because of the stronger emphasis placed on mysticism and mystery. Eastern Christians, be they Catholic or Orthodox, seem much more comfortable with mystery than Western Christians. Western Christians want everything explained and somethings don’t have an explanation. They are the way they are.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Madaglan
Guest
Which Eastern and Orthodox Churches do not have a married clergy?
To my knowledge, only the Syro-Malabar Catholics require all their priests to be celibate.
J
JReducation
Guest
Their the ones that I was thinking about, but I could not remember if they were called Syrian-Malabar or Syro-Malabar. Rather than mess up, I left out their name. I don’t know much about them. They are none in my neck of the wood. I know the Melchites very well. I was stationed in PA and there were many there.
Then you have some of the smaller rites, like the Marinite (sp?) (Lebonese). I’m not sure what they do in Lebabon, but in the US they are celibate.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
I can see that the Church will benefit from more married priests, although not in the Latin rite. Two lungs of the church being united will work so much better if they worked together. The promotion of those that are married in the Latin rite that may want to become priest to another rite in the Church would be good for the whole body.
I understand the reasons and agree with the Church on celibate Bishops and some priests in larger Parishes. I think smaller, more remote parishes, could benefit from married priests, especially in the be fruitful and multiply category. We have so few families have large numbers of children any more it would set good examples for the flocks to see this. The Bishops from the different rites could work together to place priests in the best parishes.
Jesus loves his bride. In some respects I wonder why the Church does not allow more flexibility for men to have brides as well. That being said having the different Eastern and now Anglicans will likely be VERY good for the Church, but the Latin rite needs to help by advertising.
I understand the reasons and agree with the Church on celibate Bishops and some priests in larger Parishes. I think smaller, more remote parishes, could benefit from married priests, especially in the be fruitful and multiply category. We have so few families have large numbers of children any more it would set good examples for the flocks to see this. The Bishops from the different rites could work together to place priests in the best parishes.
Jesus loves his bride. In some respects I wonder why the Church does not allow more flexibility for men to have brides as well. That being said having the different Eastern and now Anglicans will likely be VERY good for the Church, but the Latin rite needs to help by advertising.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not sure I understand your suggestion. Are you saying that we transplant priests across the different rites?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
I think priests should be celibate. Many people have to be celibate and don’t want to be. Priests should set an example. How would it be if a priest is telling someone they have to be celibate because of their life circumstances, but the priest himself doesn’t know what a cross that is because he has the joy of marriage?
J
JReducation
Guest
You do understand that the Catholic Church only requires celibacy for priests in the West, not priests in the East? Eastern Catholic priests and Orthodox priests have naver been required to live celibate lives.
This conversation is not about every single Catholic and Orthodox priest. It’s only about the Western priests or what we call the Latin priests who are secular. This question is not applicable to priests who are religious. Religious make a vow of chastity which trumps the promise of celibacy. Now we have reduced the number of men affected by this discipline to about third of Catholic priests.
The Church will never ask all of her priests to be celibate. That would be against Sacred Tradition to do so. The way that Sacred Tradition has evolved is that only secular Latin Rite priests make a promise of celibacy. Eastern Rite priests do not make a promise of celibacy. Priests who belong to religious orders also never make a promise of celibacy.
What you’re proposing that all priests be celibate is a proposal that would cut across from the Latin Rite to all of the Eastern Rites and to the Orthodox. It would also cut into religious orders.
Another way of saying what I’m saying is that those in the following list do not make a promise of celibacy:
Eastern Rite Cathat priests
Orthodox priests
Regular priets
Take out that crowd and how many do you have left? It’s not a large group. It looks large to us in the USA, Western Europe and those dioceses that are attached to the Latin Church, because our priests are Latin Rite and secular. But that is not the case with the universal Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BLeev
Guest
But the Church has said never. As in it can’t happen. The Church Herself has no power to modify the ‘matter’ of this, or really any other sacrament.
John Paul II said in the last paragraph of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."
The Church has spoken on this - through history and present day - it won’t change.
B
BLeev
Guest
How would you describe the evolution of Sacred Tradition? That by itself is confusing but in addition I’m not sure what religious orders you happen to know but living the evangelical counsel of Chastity is the be a celibate or a virgin. While it can be distinguished from how a diocesan cleric makes their promise, it is essentially the same thing. In Vita Consecrata, John Paul II, when referring to those who live this counsel, refers to them as celibates or virgins.
So maybe you should go back and do your math again from your previous argument because all religious live the counsels - including all religious priests. That leaves a greater percentage of priests that live celibately despite the priesthood of the East.
J
JReducation
Guest
First of all, the tone of your last sentence is rude. So I’m going to ask you to stop right there when you address me. I do not deserve that tone and neither does anyone else. If you hae a question you can ask it without the attitude.
Second, the statement that John Paul II made describes the vow of chastity made by religious. It does not describe the promise of celibacy made by diocesan priests. Notice the name of the document, Vita Consacrata. Only religious are live the consecrated life. The vow of chastity made by religious is not the same as the promise of celibacy.
First of all it is a public vow, not a promise. Therefore, it is a public liturgical act and a profession of faith. In the rite of ordination of diocesan clerics it is not a public liturgical act. nor is it a vow. The candidate is promising not to marry. The religious is vowing to live intimately united to Christ in the manner that Pope John Paul has described it. The diocesan cleric does not promise to be an eschatalogical sign. Therefore, though externally it may seem similar, because both religious and secular clergy are celibate, religious are not promising celibacy. They are promising prophetic chastity, which has to be celibate to be prophetic of the life that is to come. Otherwise, it would not announce the life in the Kingdom of God.
The religious vow of chastity has a communal dimension as well. Through it the religious surrenders not only his right to marriage, but also becomes a member of his religious family. The diocesan cleric does not unite himself to a religious family through the promise of celibacy.
Even though the externals appear similar, the theological reality is not the same. That’s why the consecrated chastity is essential to religious life, but celibacy is not essential to Holy Orders.
Religious do not make a vow of chastity because we’re going to be priests. We make a vow of chastity because we are consecrating our entire lives to live in intimacy with Christ as it will be for everyone in the Kingdom. Those religious who are ordained do not make a promise of celibacy. It is not included in the ordination rite, because it is not necessary. They already have a vow of chastity that goes over and above what celibacy requires.
That takes us back to the numbers. Who is it that makes a promise of celibacy in order to be ordained? The only ones that do so are secular men in the Latin Rite. Religious men in the Latin Rite do not make that promise. Secular men in the Eastern Rite and Orthodox Churches do not make that promise. That’s how we work the numbers when speaking about the promise of celibacy. The question has to be asked is not who is celibate, but who is required to promise celibacy to receive Holy Orders. The only ones that are requierd are secular men in the Latin Church.
That’s why we say that Sacred Tradition has evolved in such a way that the Latin Church has a mandatory promise of celibacy for its secular clerics. Because it is not in the rite of ordination of any other cleric, religious, Eastern or Orthodox.
A religious must be celibate, whether he is ordained or not, because he or she is a consecrated person. A secular priest is not a consecrated person. That’s why the Church makes a distinction between Holy Orders and Consecrated Life and does not include Holy Orders as part of Consecrated Life or Consecrated Life as part of Holy Orders. They are different and apart, though some men are called to both. Those who are called to both are bound by consecrated chastity; therefore, eliminating the need for a promise of celibacy. Notice that John Paul does not mention clerics in Vita Consacrata. He’s not speaking about them. He’s speaking about consecrated life.
If you go to an ordination of a religious there are two parts that are skipped. The promise of celibacy and the promise of obedience. The religious is not bound to promise obedience to the bishoop either.
When the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy does their numbers they do not include certain religious orders, even though they have priests. Religious orders and congregations are part of another group of people and come under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. Secular priests, be they diocesan or members of priestly societies are not included under Consecrated Life. They are under the Congregation for the Clergy. Any legislation on celibacy made by the Congregation of the Clergy is for secular clergy, not consecrated religious who may happen to be ordained. We say may happen, because not all consecrated men are ordained.
Now do you see what I mean when I say that the number of men required to make this promise is about 1/3 of the ordained? We have to include the Orthodox in this, becasue they have valid Holy Orders and share in the same priesthood as the Catholic priest. They are also part of the Apostolic Tradition, because their priests have apostolic succession.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BLeev
Guest
You have totally missed my point. Sorry if you got bothered by my criticism of your numbers but that is my whole point - your numbers are off. They are off because I think you are making a distinction that goes way beyond the real difference of what is at hand. I do not need to be a scholar to know that religious and diocesan priests have certain differences in the way that they were ordained and the way that they both vowed or promised to live celibately. I thru in Vita Consecrata to help you see my point, that you are making a distinction that JPII does not even make. When he refers to those who are living the evangelical counsel of chastity (only religious, I get that) he call them ‘celibates.’ SO … even though it may have been promised in a different way - celibacy - chastity for the sake of the kingdom - the evangelical counsel of chastity - they all lead to the priest living celibately. Now if you want to distinguish how a religious priest views his celibacy as opposed to a diocesan priest, fine. Or how religious priests may not always be counted, fine. If JPII was able to call religious who live the evangelical counsel of chastity ‘celibates’ then you can too. That is why I was frustrated about the numbers you were throwing out there.
I know that that religious are religious first - so the vows have been made to already live that life without any necessary call to the priesthood. But since priesthood is the topic of this thread I didn’t think I had to show that I knew this. To back my point, the celibacy (chastity) lived by the brother will be carried over into his priesthood.
You said “If you go to an ordination of a religious there are two parts that are skipped. The promise of celibacy and the promise of obedience.”
Would this not be because the person already made those vows at another time. Probably very similar to a transitional deacon making the promise of celibacy, a celibacy that will be brought into his ministry as a priest, if I’m right this is not repeated in the Priestly Ordination since it was promised in Diaconate.
Something that does bother me, something that I commented on elsewhere where you have posted, is that, even in your recent response, you make it sound like the priest is nothing more than his promise of obedience and his promise that he’ll not get married. At least when I read your comparisons it sounds like you communicating that what the religious lives has more depth, more meaning, more spiritual significance than the diocesan priest and that too is an attitude that should not exist. If I am misreading you I would ask that you at least do the Priesthood a favor by talking highly of it in all of its various forms - it is the One Priesthood of Christ after all.
J
JReducation
Guest
The point that is missing here is not that diocesan priests are inferior to religious. The point is that it is not fair to compare the two. The promise of celibacy is not the same as the vow of chastity. The promise of celibacy is a promise not to marry. The vow of chastity contains that element and more. But this is not an offense to the secular priest. They don’t take it as such and the Church does not mean it as such. It does not take anything away from the priesthood or add anything to it, because the vow of chastity is proper to the consecrated life, not the ordained.
As to the vow of obedience and the promise of obedience, they are not the same either. The promise of obedience is to the local bishop and it is restricted to pastoral matters, canon law and assignments. The vow of obedience is to the founder, the major superior, the rule and constitutions and the chapter of the order. It includes pastoral matters, canon law, assignments and the day to day personal life of the religious. The vow of obedience dictates how the religious must live, unlike the promise of obedience of the secular priest.
There is no need to protect the secular priest from the differences, because they do not take anything away from him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
I think it would be a great idea to use the strengths of each rite…and it would allow the Latin Rite faithful to experience others…It would bring us together I think…I’m not sure I understand your suggestion. Are you saying that we transplant priests across the different rites?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BLeev
Guest
This feels like a ping-pong match. Can I please establish that I know the vows a religious take and the promises the diocesan cleric take are directed to their superior, whether that is the Bishop of the Diocese, or for the religious, their Religious Superior, I know this. The diocesan priest is living his celibacy with the same understanding of what it is a religious priest does, even though one is diocesan and the other is religious. Bringing in Pastores Dabo Vobis, where JPII is not specifically talking of religious life like in Vita Consecrata, he explains that the priest is living this radicalization of the Gospel through living these counsels and that the priest’s celibacy is “a witness to the world of the eschatological kingdom.” You were in error by making the comment that you did. The priest does make a promise to be an eschatological sign through the living of the celibacy he is called to live, just as a religious or a religious priest does. While he make not say that explicitly in the Ordination Rite it is nonetheless implicit in his intention in becoming a priest and making these promises in the presence of his Bishop and God’s people.
So is our difference between a vow and a promise? A vow is another word for solemn promise. I know these are done in different settings and so forth but when we look at these can’t we say that poverty, chastity and obedience are present in both even though they manifest themselves a bit differently. I agree with you on what you say about obedience and poverty and how these are different for the religious. I just think there is much more of a complimentarity between celibacy and the vow of chastity (for the sake of our discussion, the religious and diocesan priest). I understand your wanting to explain the differences but there are also a lot of similarities as well.
J
JReducation
Guest
No one denies that there is an overlap. But there is also a fundamental canonical difference and a difference in how they are expressed both in law and in daily life.
Pastore Dado Vobis says.
"The priest is called to live these counsels in accordance with those ways and, more specifically, those goals and that basic meaning which derive from and express his own priestly identity"
The priest who is a religious does not assume a priestly identity. He is a religious and therefore, his identity is that of a religious. The vow derives its meaning from his religious identity, not his priestly identity." The religious identity is different, even if the religious is ordained.
This was a point that was debated and resolved during the Middle Ages when priests joined religious orders. The question arose, is he a priest or is he a religious (monk, friar or clerk regular). The conclusion of the founders was that they were ordained religious or regular clerics. They took their identity not from Holy Orders, but from religious profession of vows.
From this understanding Canon Law in 1983 was revised to say:
Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
The canon does not mention a vow. However, it has always been understood that the promise of celibacy is a solemn commitment on the part of the candidate for Holy Orders. But we must observe that the canon is very specific that they are obliged to live continence. A vow is not a solemn promise. In fact, there are solemn and simple vows. These are very different from each other.
Can. 654 By religious profession, members assume the observance of the three evangelical counsels by public vow, are consecrated to God through the ministry of the Church, and are incorporated into the institute with the rights and duties defined by law.
The canon very specifically mentions two words that make the profession different. It mentions the word “vow” and “consecrated”. The vow of chastity is inseparable from the vows of poverty and obedience. The secular cleric is not bound to poverty and obedience by vows. All Christians are bound to practice the Evangelical Counsels. There has never been a question on this matter. But the commitment is different. On the one hand, you have the moral obligation that all the baptized have to the evangelical counsels and on the other hand you have a vow whereby one publicly professes to reach the perfection of charity through the observance evangelical counsels.
No one has denied that religious who vow chastity are celibate men. The point is that we are consecrated by the vows. That makes us different and gives the vow an added dimension that is not present in the promise of celibacy.
The one takes nothing away from the other. They each have a very special place in the life of the Church. The difference between them are two: one is a vow and the other is a promise. There is a theological difference in the definitions.
The other difference is that the promise of celibacy is not essential to Holy Orders, whereas the vow of chastity is essential to religious life.
What we see from the Fathers of the Church concerning celibacy is the strong focus on continence.
**"With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written ‘be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord?’ "(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242). **
As regards the religious life, continence is part of the vow, but there is more added to it.
**According to the existing law, religious profession denotes the act of embracing the religious state by the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the rule of an order canonically approved; it involves then a triple vow made to God, and binding oneself to the rule of a certain order.
The first formula, which expressly mentions poverty and chastity, is that of the Constitutions of Narbonne, promulgated in 1260 by St. Bonaventure for the Friars Minor (Franciscans).**
In the religious life, chastity is part of a tripple vow. That’s why we say that it involved continence and more, which is not included in the promise of celibacy. It was not St. Bonaventure’s intent to define chastity as continence. But it was his intent to express continence as part of the explicit act of embracing the religious state.
Hence religious men and secular priests are both continent, but religious continence is part of a triple vow. I cannot stand alone.
I don’t really believe that this is a very productive discussion, because the issue at hand is celibacy for secular clergy, not religious vows.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BLeev
Guest
Thank you - that was what I was trying to say.
If I remember correctly you were the one first making a distinction between the two. But I do agree with you, this is not very productive. I do not wish to quarrel over points made. As I said, I get the differences between religious (those who are not priests and those who are) and secular priests. The overlapping that you have mentioned now was not always portrayed in your early comments which is what got this whole discussion going in the first place. For instance - something you didn’t reply to from the last response I gave you - the priest is an eschatological sign of the kingdom, which you said he was not (I quoted what post you made that in too). I was trying to make some clarifications and to show you in the process that you did not describe certain things that well.I don’t really believe that this is a very productive discussion, because the issue at hand is celibacy for secular clergy, not religious vows.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I hope you see the point I was trying to make. It’s been fun.
Peace
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
I did not know this.You do understand that the Catholic Church only requires celibacy for priests in the West, not priests in the East? Eastern Catholic priests and Orthodox priests have naver been required to live celibate lives.
This conversation is not about every single Catholic and Orthodox priest. It’s only about the Western priests or what we call the Latin priests who are secular. This question is not applicable to priests who are religious. Religious make a vow of chastity which trumps the promise of celibacy. Now we have reduced the number of men affected by this discipline to about third of Catholic priests.
The Church will never ask all of her priests to be celibate. That would be against Sacred Tradition to do so. The way that Sacred Tradition has evolved is that only secular Latin Rite priests make a promise of celibacy. Eastern Rite priests do not make a promise of celibacy. Priests who belong to religious orders also never make a promise of celibacy.
What you’re proposing that all priests be celibate is a proposal that would cut across from the Latin Rite to all of the Eastern Rites and to the Orthodox. It would also cut into religious orders.
Another way of saying what I’m saying is that those in the following list do not make a promise of celibacy:
Eastern Rite Cathat priests
Orthodox priests
Regular priets
Take out that crowd and how many do you have left? It’s not a large group. It looks large to us in the USA, Western Europe and those dioceses that are attached to the Latin Church, because our priests are Latin Rite and secular. But that is not the case with the universal Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I always thought a married clergy was just for Protestants. I’m American and Roman Catholic, so all I’ve ever known was celibate priests.At any rate, I admire the voluntary celibacy of the priests and nuns who make that vow because I do think it sets a good example for the many people for whom celibacy is not a choice.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I pointed this out in another thread and was promptly attacked for it but I will do so here.
No one really lives out their “celibacy” as all celibacy is, is not marrying. A promise of Celibacy is a promise to ones bishop and the Church not to marry.
A religious makes no such thing. A religious makes the evangelical counsels, the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
In my novitiate this is how the promises a secular priest makes and a the vows a religious make were shown to be different.
A secular priest who contracts a marriage in the Catholic Church but fails to disclose that he is a priest would contract a valid though illict marriage. A religious who attempted the same thing would have an invalid and illicty marriage.
The promises made by secular priests are different than the vows taken by religious. Vows are not “solemn promises”.
I find it funny here how non-religiious love to argue points of religious life with actual religious living that life.
No one really lives out their “celibacy” as all celibacy is, is not marrying. A promise of Celibacy is a promise to ones bishop and the Church not to marry.
A religious makes no such thing. A religious makes the evangelical counsels, the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
In my novitiate this is how the promises a secular priest makes and a the vows a religious make were shown to be different.
A secular priest who contracts a marriage in the Catholic Church but fails to disclose that he is a priest would contract a valid though illict marriage. A religious who attempted the same thing would have an invalid and illicty marriage.
The promises made by secular priests are different than the vows taken by religious. Vows are not “solemn promises”.
I find it funny here how non-religiious love to argue points of religious life with actual religious living that life.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
Brother, I respectfully disagree with the way you have put this. Yes, every Priest is called to one Priesthood of Christ - however, it is not one Church with three different heads. It is one priesthood that has schism’d perhaps irreconcilably. Yes, some may wish for these Churches to come back together but right now - they are not in communion with each other - although they may be invited to take Eucharist. I am speaking strictly on theory and certainly hope I am in no way being disrespectful - but that is what I see - so at this point comparing Eastern and Roman is just like comparing Anglican and Roman or Anglican and Eastern. Schisms happen.That’s the point that Br. David and I are trying to explain. The call is to the one priesthood of Jesus Christ, whether you are Roman, Eastern or Orthodox. However, the conditions for the call are not the same, because the Church has the power to bind and unbind.
The Church has bound that only those men who are celibate can be called to the priesthood in the Roman Rite. What changes is the condition.
Even in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches, the married man can be called to be a deacon or priest, but a deacon or priest cannot be called to get married. Bishops are always celibate. That takes care of them. Even there, there are conditions. You must be called to marriage first, then Holy Orders, not the other way around.
For many Romans this the difference between the call to the one priesthood, but the different circumstances and conditions under which Christ calls, is a difficult concept. I think that the Eastern Rites and Orthodox Church understand this a little better, because of the stronger emphasis placed on mysticism and mystery. Eastern Christians, be they Catholic or Orthodox, seem much more comfortable with mystery than Western Christians. Western Christians want everything explained and somethings don’t have an explanation. They are the way they are.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status