5
5Loaves
Guest
First ordination to the priesthood in US of married Maronite deacon. 
First ordination to the priesthood in US of married Maronite deacon
- Status
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Please explain how this is a first. The Eastern Catholic Churches have many married priests. They were all deacons before the priesthood.
S
ServusHumilis
Guest
S
shlomo3amrooh
Guest
It could be a first in the sense of a married man being ordained IN the USA.
Many married priests in the USA get ordained in the Patriarchal territories, then come back to the USA.
Many married priests in the USA get ordained in the Patriarchal territories, then come back to the USA.
M
malphono
Guest
It will be a “first” for the Maronites.
That’s never happened for us. None of the bishops would touch it. It seems that they still won’t.
That’s why I wouldn’t get too exited over this. While it’s a first and it’s a good thing, it comes about only because “special permission” was given by Rome. What Rome is apparently doing is applying the “per case review” principle from Anglicanorum Coetibus to the Maronites. IOW, it’s not a real change in policy: cum data fuerit is still the official party line.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
Indeed. We’re not quite sui iuris if every time we want to do an ancient tradition one of our bishops has to go kowtow to the Curia. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next bishop of Los Angeles reverts to not permitting married priests to serve in his diocese, just like the bishop of Brooklyn.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think you need to be more specific as to which part you don’t understand. As the thread title says, this was the first time a married Maronite deacon was ordained to the priesthood in USA.
P.S. Is it the “Maronite” part?
A
Alveus_Lacuna
Guest
Uh, doesn’t the Latin rite allow married men to be deacons as well? How is this news from any standpoint?
D
dixieagle
Guest
You’ve missed the point; this was about the ordination of a married deacon to the priesthood, apparently a first in the US for Maronites.
B
ByzCath08
Guest
Great news. Finally, the Bishops are starting to go back to our tradition.
D
dixieagle
Guest
I hope we see a flood of ordinations of married deacons! Time to act like sui iuris churches again.
C
cmodrmac
Guest
I thought the local Bishop had no authority over Priests of other Rites-is that not so?
B
ByzCath08
Guest
My Bishop ordained two married deacons to the priesthood last June. Another one of our seminarians is taking time off to marry before his ordination to the diaconate. He is expected to complete his studies and be ordained to the priesthood in 2015.
B
ByzCath08
Guest
@cmodrmac…Not sure what you are exactly asking, but I think this might help you understand.
When Eastern Catholics started coming over to the US from their homelands, many brought with them their Eastern Catholic priest and his family. The bishops in the US objected to Rome and said that Eastern Catholic priests should be celibate so as not to scandalize the faithful. Rome agreed and after that, Eastern Bishops dare not ordain married men in the US. In fact, many Eastern Catholic priests left the church and became Orthodox after that. That was the rule up until very recently.
Some Eastern Bishops begain “importing” married priests from the old country and that was acceptable. Sometime in the 80’s or 90’s, an Eastern Bishop ordained a married Amercian man, but was given the smack down from Rome. Now, it appears that more Bishops are starting to see the hypocrisy of having married clergy in one country, but not the USA and are starting to ordain married American men again.
When Eastern Catholics started coming over to the US from their homelands, many brought with them their Eastern Catholic priest and his family. The bishops in the US objected to Rome and said that Eastern Catholic priests should be celibate so as not to scandalize the faithful. Rome agreed and after that, Eastern Bishops dare not ordain married men in the US. In fact, many Eastern Catholic priests left the church and became Orthodox after that. That was the rule up until very recently.
Some Eastern Bishops begain “importing” married priests from the old country and that was acceptable. Sometime in the 80’s or 90’s, an Eastern Bishop ordained a married Amercian man, but was given the smack down from Rome. Now, it appears that more Bishops are starting to see the hypocrisy of having married clergy in one country, but not the USA and are starting to ordain married American men again.
V
Vico
Guest
Good point. Byzantine (Ruthenian) particular law shows that the norms of the Apostolic See are to be followed unless dispensed by the same. So it is not in the power of the local hierarch for the Byzantine Metropolitan Church. Bishop Andrew tried to get that changed but is was not granted.I thought the local Bishop had no authority over Priests of other Rites-is that not so?
Canon 758 §3
§1. Married men, after completion of the formation prescribed by law, can be admitted to the order of deacon
§2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.
A
Aramis
Guest
The local bishop of the place has jurisdiction over all priests in his diocese save those incardinated into other overlapping ordinaries’ jurisdictions (ordinariates, ECC’s Eparchies, personal prelatures, religious orders).I thought the local Bishop had no authority over Priests of other Rites-is that not so?
Within most of the west, the local territorial ordinary is the Roman Rite bishop.
Where overlapping juridictions exist, people are under the care of their own bishop or ordinary if his jurisdiction overlaps, or under the care of the local Roman if not.
In the continental US, if you’re Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Slovenian, Italo-Albanian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Maronite, Melkite, Romanian, you have a bishop (The Slovenians and Italo-albanians are assiged to the Ruthenians by Rome; if you’re Anglican in Union with Rome, you’ve a non-bishop as your Ordinary, but he has the same authority (just can’t ordain people).
In the Continental US, if you’re Russian GCC, you’re under your local roman bishop.
The others, I’m not certain.
Religious gets complicated - but generally, Religious priests assigned to a house of their order are not under the local bishop; Religious priests on loan to a diocese come under the authority of the bishop (but they generally aren’t supposed to be doing that anymore). Within the walls and/or grounds of a religious community’s house/priory/convent/monastery/abbey of the western church, you’re outside the authority of the bishop. Eastern Monastic Communities are traditionally under the authority of a particular bishop - usually either the local bishop or the patriarch, but some are papal right and thus almost exactly like the western orders for this purpose.
A
adawgj
Guest
Congrats on his ordination we need priests.
M
mardukm
Guest
Any inter-eparchial/diocesan issue within a Metropolitan See requires the consent of the head bishop of the Metropolitan See.
Any inter-Metropolitan issue within a Patriarchal See requires the consent of the head bishop of the Patriarchal See.
Any inter-Patriarchal issue within the universal Church requires the consent of the head bishop of the Church universal.
The issue of a married priesthood is, in fact, an inter-Patriarchal issue, which is why the bishop of Rome is involved.
IF the Latin bishops in the Latin territories had no problem with married priests, then the Pope would not be involved. But it is because the Latin bishops historically (and perhaps still do) have a general problem with married priests that the Pope is involved.
The Pope’s involvement is not a reflection on or diminution of the sui juris status of Oriental and Eastern Churches, but rather a sign that the Pope is protecting the patrimony of the Oriental and Eastern Churches in Latin territories.
If the Pope of Rome was not involved, the Latin bishops would have it ALL their way, and we would not have any married priests at all in Latin jurisdictional territories.
The issue of married priests is really only a part of the “big picture” of particular Tradition. The Pope has always supported the conventional Tradition of the local region. In Ukraine and India, for example, the Pope has simply supported the decisions of the local Synods, when asked to intervene between the preservation of local Tradition and the intrusion of Latinizations. The Pope is merely doing likewise in the traditional Latin territories - supporting the decisions of the local episcopal conferences, except he is more proactive in giving dispensations from the local rules for Oriental and Eastern Churches.
Blessings
Any inter-Metropolitan issue within a Patriarchal See requires the consent of the head bishop of the Patriarchal See.
Any inter-Patriarchal issue within the universal Church requires the consent of the head bishop of the Church universal.
The issue of a married priesthood is, in fact, an inter-Patriarchal issue, which is why the bishop of Rome is involved.
IF the Latin bishops in the Latin territories had no problem with married priests, then the Pope would not be involved. But it is because the Latin bishops historically (and perhaps still do) have a general problem with married priests that the Pope is involved.
The Pope’s involvement is not a reflection on or diminution of the sui juris status of Oriental and Eastern Churches, but rather a sign that the Pope is protecting the patrimony of the Oriental and Eastern Churches in Latin territories.
If the Pope of Rome was not involved, the Latin bishops would have it ALL their way, and we would not have any married priests at all in Latin jurisdictional territories.
The issue of married priests is really only a part of the “big picture” of particular Tradition. The Pope has always supported the conventional Tradition of the local region. In Ukraine and India, for example, the Pope has simply supported the decisions of the local Synods, when asked to intervene between the preservation of local Tradition and the intrusion of Latinizations. The Pope is merely doing likewise in the traditional Latin territories - supporting the decisions of the local episcopal conferences, except he is more proactive in giving dispensations from the local rules for Oriental and Eastern Churches.
Blessings
C
Cojuanco
Guest
The reason the Latin bishops are reluctant to see such a phenomenon is that the faithful (many of which unfortunately seem to get all their adult faith formation from the pulpit alone) might be confused and think this means that priests could marry, as in the practice of the Protestants.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
It should be noted in India, although the Malabarese were thoroughly Latinized by the Portuguese, when Mor Ivanios reunited the Syro-Malankarese, the Pope specifically said that the Tradition of Married men in the diaconate and priesthood would be NO obstacle. Mor Ivanios had many married clergy join initially, but most were celibates, as he founded and headed the monastic communities. My impression from reading the history of the time, was that Mor Ivanios took for granted that the rest of the Church would reunite with him and this would never come up as an issue. Today’s writing suggests that Mor Ivanios chose celibacy “perpetually” to conform to the Latin and Syro-Malabarese practice - although I don’t think that is what actually took place. A priest-canon lawyer who I am close to suggested that the option to return to the Traditional practice was again mentioned in 2002 or 2005 when the Eastern Code and Syro-Malankara particular laws were being promulgated but nothing came of it publicly, and no mention of a restoration was brought to fruition.
- Status