Do Eastern Catholic Priests marry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joab_Anias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sskyking said:
As an aside, “Canterbury Tales” was allegedly intended to support the reformation movement.
Click to expand...
What an amazing allegation. Maybe Chaucer used a crystal ball to see into the future. Or maybe it was a Ouija board. 🤷
 
Each church is part of 1 rite, but each rite, deriving from the spiritual traditions of a specific place. For the Roman Rite, Rome. For the Byzantine Rite, Constantinople, tho with three regional variations (subrites) of Greek/Constantinopolitan, Syro-Byzantine out of Antioch, and Slavo-byzantine out of the Kyivan and Muscovite sees. The Syrian Rite arises in Antioch, and the Chaldean in Iraq, but originally being syriac in origin. The Armenian arises in the middle east as well. The Coptic Rite, with it’s Ethiopian Subrite, arises in Egypt.

There are three Syrian Rite churches sui iuris; each is autonomous under the pope. There are 2 chaldean rite churches sui iuris, again, each autonomous under the pope. Each of these five churches is distinctly different in their expression, but all 5 use the syrian
There are two Coptic Rite churches, the Coptic and the Ethiopian.

There are 14 current Byzantine Rite Churches Sui Iuris, amongst the 3 subrites. Only the Melkites are syro-byzantines.
 
also is the Latin Rite and the Roman Catholic Church the same thing?
Click to expand...
The Latin Rite is the main Rite (ritual form and practice) of the Latin Church. Latin Church is the same as Roman (Catholic) Church. There are other Rites in the Latin Church, however, such as the Dominican and Mozarabic, though they are quite limited in their areas of use.

Also a Liturgy doesn’t have to be in Latin to be Latin Rite; the modern “Ordinary Form” is “Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite” even when said in English.

Peace and God bless!
 
schulze43 said:
What is the difference between rite and Church Sui Luris?
Click to expand...
Rite is a liturgical family. There are about half dozen Eastern rites in this sense.

A sui juris church has its own hierarchy, sometimes patriarchal, sometimes major archepiscopal, sometimes with other structural forms, which is autonomous under the Pope and basically manages its own affairs, including choosing its own bishops.

Latins, especially before Vatican II, tend to use the solecism “Melkite rite” (for example) when the term “Melkite Church” should be used.
 
To expand a bit: the Latin Church has 8+ different missals approved for CURRENT use falling into two major families (Roman and Gallican), with an oddball (Mozarabic) that seems to fit into neither category. Properly, they are not Rites, but are called that frequently.

Why they are not rites? They originate in the same patriarchate, from the same root tradition, and cross fertilized frequently.

The Bragan, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian Missals are restricted to their home provinces, and usually their home diocese; the Bragan is restricted to a few specific parishes.

The Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian Missals are restricted to celebrations by members of those orders, although other members of the church are permitted to be present and even (within the limits of their specific rubrics) other roman clerics may concelebrate.

The Dalmatian Missal (or Slavonic Missal or Glagolitic Missal) is the “official” translation to Old Church Slavonic for use in Dalmatia and southern Croatia; it’s the only “non-latin” approved missal in the Roman Church prior to Vatican II, and is still technically approved, since vatican II didn’t abrogate it, either, and is intelligible to most of the local tongues in those dioceses, obviating the need for a vernacular missal. It’s been a staple since about 1000 AD, and formally approved since 1628 by HH Pope John VIII… in 1828, the use of Slavonic in the latin seminaries in Dalmatia and Croatia was approved. It should be noted that the various updates to the Latin Missal were not always implemented in the Dalmatian Missal (aka the Glagolitic Missal, for the alphabet in which it is written).

I’m not positive, but I seem to recall reading that the mass as promulgated by Pp. Paul VI was also promulgated in Church Slavonic a year or two later. (found another reference to that at jolietlatin.org/Texts/Latin%20Rites.html)
 
ok thanks so much everyone for explaining that to me:) this all makes a lot more sense now:)
 
As an aside, “Canterbury Tales” was allegedly intended to support the reformation movement.
Click to expand...
I would strongly disagree with that statement. Most of the people who hold that assertion are Anglicans trying to claim him for their own. Since Chaucer was never included or even suggested for inclusion in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, one can be sure his works were never considered anti-Catholic by the hierarchy. My dear departed classics professor John Senior would be rolling in his grave at such an assertion.

It’s not just Chaucer; several other contemporaries can also be cited about the practice of married parochial clergy in the English Church.
 
Cluny said:
Rite is a liturgical family. There are about half dozen Eastern rites in this sense.

A sui juris church has its own hierarchy, sometimes patriarchal, sometimes major archepiscopal, sometimes with other structural forms, which is autonomous under the Pope and basically manages its own affairs, including choosing its own bishops.

Latins, especially before Vatican II, tend to use the solecism “Melkite rite” (for example) when the term “Melkite Church” should be used.
Click to expand...
Something that occured to me: the use of the term “Eastern rites” for “Eastern Catholic Churches” is influenced by two different models of the Church.

Is the Catholic Church one unified, uniform whole, that is, Latin, with these exotic “rites” allowed to exist as tolerated exceptions?

Or is the Catholic Church a COMMUNION or community of autonomous Churches in communion with the See of St. Peter and upholding the same faith?
 
Cluny said:
Something that occured to me: the use of the term “Eastern rites” for “Eastern Catholic Churches” is influenced by two different models of the Church.

Is the Catholic Church one unified, uniform whole, that is, Latin, with these exotic “rites” allowed to exist as tolerated exceptions?

Or is the Catholic Church a COMMUNION or community of autonomous Churches in communion with the See of St. Peter and upholding the same faith?
Click to expand...
Between 1066 & 1880, it was clearly the former; since Vatican II (since 1965, really), clearly the latter. In between, the popes kept improving the status of the eastern churches outside their own homelands.
 
Aramis said:
Between 1066 & 1880, it was clearly the former; since Vatican II (since 1965, really), clearly the latter. In between, the popes kept improving the status of the eastern churches outside their own homelands.
Click to expand...
For the first grouping, I would prefer to say de fecto, yes, but de jure, no. In other words, whereas the practice was more-or-less as you say, the rule was something else. For the second, well, that’s a matter of opinion. For the third, what you say is, to my knowledge, essentially true for the Byzantine East. But it’s not quite so true for the non-Byzantine Orient.
 
As answered in part in several of these post, in the Eastern tradition, a man, who is married, may then receive the sacrament of ordination (to deaconate or priesthood). Usually, if his wife dies, he cannot remarry. The only exception may be in the case of (as noted) a married priest who has small children; since the family (children) would possibly suffer without the care of a mother (being as the father, as priest, has his priestly duties), it can be petitioned to allow a new marriage.

Please note: NOT all Eastern priests are married! Some have chosen the monastic life, as well as being a priest, so obviously, they are celibate. Some who are parish priests (NOT monks) also chose to become a priest solely. The explanation for allowing a married man to enter the deaconate, then the priesthood, is that, once married, you learn what the responsibilities and burdens of the vocation of husband and father. IF YOU STILL FEEL A CALLING TO THE PRIESTHOOD, understanding that there may be conflicts, but that the priesthood should come first, then you may be accepted to deaconate, and then priesthood - and do understand that the men who help form/teach those candidates to the deaconate/priesthood will discuss the potential problems (there is that natural progression - some may never become a priest, or stay a deacon until later in life, maybe after the children have grown and a near-retirement couple could live more easily on the salary of a priest).

At this point in history, it is also a choice to forgo seeking higher offices such as bishop, archbishop, etc. (Pope). My understanding is only those who are celibate priests may be considered for these higher offices in the Church.

So, like many professions and vocations, there are many paths, but a married clergy is not the only answer. As a Ukrainian Catholic, I have had parish priests who are celibate but not monks, those who chose to be a monk and therefore also celibate, and some who have been married deacons and then priest. In all cases, there have been very good pastors and some who had their lackings. It was not limited to to celibate priest, monk/priest or married priest - so the path followed regarding their sexuality did not influence their abilities as priest in my view.

It is truly a hard and often solitary (even if married) path to take when a man decides to follow the calling to be a priest. In spite of advice or counseling received before ordination to deaconate or priesthood, I have seen or heard of situations where there arose conflicts between the duties of the priest and responsibilities of husband/father. In some ways I think perhaps, if married, the couple should be married several years (and not years where the deacon/priest candidate is away studying) and truly understand the difficulties they may encounter if the husband becomes a priest. These difficulties include: lower income than your contemporary friends and family, homes that are never “yours” (ie., rectories), competition for the time/attention of the priest from family and parishioners, and complaining directed (usually behind your back) by “well-meaning” parishioners to the priest as well as his family, wife and children. These aren’t unsurmountable difficulties, but a couple would need to agree on their focus. Often the wife needs to be able to have a career that can provide those “extras” for their children (savings for parochial school, college, adequate insurance to provide for the untimely death of either parent). Sometimes it means the priest/husband/father might need to have a “second” job - hospital chaplain, teacher, etc., but those will tend to conflict with what parishioners expect of their priest.

So, expect no easy answers with a married priesthood. Like many things in life, it is much more complex.

Also: did not some of the mandates toward a celibate priesthood come about because of the abuses found in priest, monks, and even Popes during the Dark and Middle Ages? Of course, when some men were “assigned” to those posts due to the political pressures of their father or families, since only the eldest son usually inherited the estate and titles, I am sure there were many who really weren’t called to the priesthood. In all cases, the path to the deaconate/priesthood needs to be clearly understood by the person following it and he needs to freely agree to follow God’s calling, don’t you think?
 
Hello,

In response to Gwat’s 8 June 2009 post: “I think priests should be allowed to marry for the simple reason that we all have the right to procreate and leave a progeny, a legacy when we leave this world.”

Procreation is not a right–it is a privilege. But not the kind of privilege the state or any religion has the “right” to control.

Humans are different from all other living creatures in that we are the only (or one of maybe three) species to participate in actions that can result in procreation for the sole reason of pleasure–not always with the intent of procreating. Further, I would differentiate between those who procreate to leave a legacy and those who solely procreate. In my mind, procreation with the intent of generating a legacy entails the nurturing and raising of one’s progeny; I simply cannot accept that every individual who procreates does so with this goal in mind.

I am very aware of the social and religious stigmas surrounding adoption, however, a solution to this problem is allowing those in these “problem positions” to adopt children from individuals who didn’t want to, couldn’t or can no longer properly raise their progeny. In my mind, while nature does play a certain role in the production of children, nurture is more influential in the raising of a child. In this model, individuals like priests would be able to create a legacy without breaking their religious obligations.

thanks!

Dean Graziosi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top