Former Protestant Pastor in the Eastern Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter MBd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MBd

Guest
Let’s say a protestant pastor decides to convert to the Catholic Church, but he wants to get baptized and become a priest. If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor. What if he becomes an eastern catholic?? will he be allowed to be a pastor?

Thanks for your answers. God bless
 
MBd said:
Let’s say a protestant pastor decides to convert to the Catholic Church, but he wants to get baptized and become a priest. If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor. What if he becomes an eastern catholic?? will he be allowed to be a pastor?

Thanks for your answers. God bless
Click to expand...
Of course! If he is called to. Our subdeacon is not a former pastor, but he was a Baptist. In fact I believe he told me his dad was a Baptist minister.
 
MBd said:
Let’s say a protestant pastor decides to convert to the Catholic Church, but he wants to get baptized and become a priest. If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor. What if he becomes an eastern catholic?? will he be allowed to be a pastor?

Thanks for your answers. God bless
Click to expand...
Most Protestant pastors are probably already baptized, so he probably wouldn’t be getting baptized, but as was said above, if he’s called it would be allowed, and if he’s not called he wouldn’t. It’s up to the bishop.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Of course! If he is called to. Our subdeacon is not a former pastor, but he was a Baptist. In fact I believe he told me his dad was a Baptist minister.
Click to expand...
Not so quick now…
A married protestant pastor I know became catholic and wanted to be ordained for the Byzantine Catholic Church (Van Nuys Eparchy). Rome forbade this as the provision for married pastors becoming catholic priests was ONLY for the Latin church.

He now serves in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Phoenix.
 
ciero said:
Not so quick now…
A married protestant pastor I know became catholic and wanted to be ordained for the Byzantine Catholic Church (Van Nuys Eparchy). Rome forbade this as the provision for married pastors becoming catholic priests was ONLY for the Latin church.

He now serves in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Phoenix.
Click to expand...
Maybe because he came into the Roman Church first? I can’t see why an Eastern Church cannot accept a convert.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Maybe because he came into the Roman Church first? I can’t see why an Eastern Church cannot accept a convert.
Click to expand...
No he came into the Byzantine church and was ordained a deacon for the Byzantines…when it came time for priestly ordination Rome stepped in and put a stop to it.

Like I said the reason given was the provision was only for the Latin church…now this did happen about 20 years ago…things might be different today.
 
ciero said:
No he came into the Byzantine church and was ordained a deacon for the Byzantines…when it came time for priestly ordination Rome stepped in and put a stop to it.

Like I said the reason given was the provision was only for the Latin church…now this did happen about 20 years ago…things might be different today.
Click to expand...
Aahhh… could be. Didn’t the new CCEO lifted the ban on married priest ordination in Eastern Churches outside of their traditional lands of patrimony (or whatever the term for it is)?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Aahhh… could be. Didn’t the new CCEO lifted the ban on married priest ordination in Eastern Churches outside of their traditional lands of patrimony (or whatever the term for it is)?
Click to expand...
For the Ruthenians each case of ordination of a married man must be submitted to Rome for their ok.
 
Right, almost forgot about that. Maybe the Pastor joined the Ruthenians?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Right, almost forgot about that. Maybe the Pastor joined the Ruthenians?
Click to expand...
He did. Ciero stated that he entered the Eparchy of Van Nuys, which is an Eparchy of the Ruthenian Church, but it has moved and is now the Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix.
 
MBd said:
Let’s say a protestant pastor decides to convert to the Catholic Church, but he wants to get baptized and become a priest. If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor. What if he becomes an eastern catholic?? will he be allowed to be a pastor?

Thanks for your answers. God bless
Click to expand...
No one has any right to be ordained to the priesthood. First the aspirant must believe he has a vocation from God and that he wants to answer God’s call. He will then go through a process of discernment with the Church, which will decide whether to accept him for formation as a priest. I cannot understand how you think that he would have a greater chance of being accepted for the priesthood in an Eastern Church than in the Latin Church. You said: “If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor.” If he becomes an Eastern Catholic, he still won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
No one has any right to be ordained to the priesthood. First the aspirant must believe he has a vocation from God and that he wants to answer God’s call. He will then go through a process of discernment with the Church, which will decide whether to accept him for formation as a priest. I cannot understand how you think that he would have a greater chance of being accepted for the priesthood in an Eastern Church than in the Latin Church. You said: “If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor.” If he becomes an Eastern Catholic, he still won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood. I do not think MBd is speaking about being ordained but being assigned as a pastor of a Church.

It is my understanding that the Roman Church, or at least some bishops in it, refrain from assigning married convert clergy as a pastor of a parish (except for the Anglician Use parishes).
 
ciero said:
MBd;7227372:
Let’s say a protestant pastor decides to convert to the Catholic Church, but he wants to get baptized and become a priest. If he becomes Roman, he won’t know for sure if he will be allowed to be a pastor. What if he becomes an eastern catholic?? will he be allowed to be a pastor?
Click to expand...
A married protestant pastor I know became catholic and wanted to be ordained for the Byzantine Catholic Church (Van Nuys Eparchy). Rome forbade this as the provision for married pastors becoming catholic priests was ONLY for the Latin church.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s the effect but not exactly the reason. This very thing came up a few weeks ago in a discussion I was having with a priest-friend who is a canon lawyer (JOCD/JCD). Anyway, a Protestant is always received into the Latin Church. If it happens that the man falls into the “pastoral provision” category and is eventually ordained a priest, it would be for the Latin Church. Of course there is nothing to prevent him from requesting, and being granted, bi-ritual faculties. Theoretically, (and this wasn’t directly part of the discussion), I suppose the man could petition to transfer Churches sui juris after ordination and after having had bi-ritual faculties for a period of time, but whether the transfer would be granted is another question.
 
ByzCath said:
I think you misunderstood. I do not think MBd is speaking about being ordained but being assigned as a pastor of a Church.

It is my understanding that the Roman Church, or at least some bishops in it, refrain from assigning married convert clergy as a pastor of a parish (except for the Anglician Use parishes).
Click to expand...
Thanks ByzCath. Indeed,he misunderstood what I meant. And you’re right. Some, and again SOME, bishops in the Roman Church refrain from assigning married convert clergy as pastors of a parish. THAT’S what I actually meant. To find married pastors in the Roman church is extremely rare - admit it Matthew - because married pastors are just exceptions.
 
malphono said:
Well, that’s the effect but not exactly the reason. This very thing came up a few weeks ago in a discussion I was having with a priest-friend who is a canon lawyer (JOCD/JCD). Anyway, a Protestant is always received into the Latin Church. If it happens that the man falls into the “pastoral provision” category and is eventually ordained a priest, it would be for the Latin Church. Of course there is nothing to prevent him from requesting, and being granted, bi-ritual faculties. Theoretically, (and this wasn’t directly part of the discussion), I suppose the man could petition to transfer Churches sui juris after ordination and after having had bi-ritual faculties for a period of time, but whether the transfer would be granted is another question.
Click to expand...
This is as I suspected, but I find it interesting the Vatican restrain a man who is spiritually (and presumably theologically) an Eastern Christian in that way.

I don’t see why the Pope, in his capacity as universal pastor for all the churches, would make a ‘Pastoral Provision’ skewed in favor of one Sui Iuris church over the others.

I have a friend who was converted from the Methodist church into the Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) Metropolia of Pittsburgh, as a minister he was a church planter, a real missionary. He aspired to the priesthood but has never been given the opportunity and I wonder if that is the reason.

I feel bad for him.
 
MBd said:
lol… you know what I mean. That married priests in the roman church are just exceptions.
Click to expand...
I have only made one posting in which I contributed to the debate. I did not make any absolute or relative statement as to whether married priests in the Roman Church are common or exceptions. I think we all accept that statistically they are relative rare.

I will admit to having laboured under several misconceptions. It sounded to me that the OP was suggesting that one had more chance of becoming a priest in an Eastern Catholic Church (ECC) than in the Latin Catholic Church (LCC). This is due to my misinterpretation of the word ‘pastor’. In the US you use the term ‘pastor’ for what we in Britain would call ‘parish priest’. In Britain we would most commonly associate the word pastor with Protestant churches, e.g. the Baptist Pastor.

So, I thought the OP was saying that a Protestant pastor (= minister) would have more chance of becoming an ECC priest than an LCC one. I now realise because of the American use of the word ‘pastor’ the OP meant a former Protestant would have a better chance of becoming a pastor (=parish priest) in an ECC because they have a married clergy rather than a pastor (=parish priest) in the LCC because the LCC doesn’t have a married clergy.

I also admit that I wasn’t aware that LCC bishops preferred not to allow married priests to be pastors (=parish priest). I therefore assume they have to serve as assistant parish priests (= assistant pastor?). I wonder if they will have to have a re-think on that one owing to the general shortage of priests.
 
Hesychios said:
This is as I suspected, but I find it interesting the Vatican restrain a man who is spiritually (and presumably theologically) an Eastern Christian in that way.

I don’t see why the Pope, in his capacity as universal pastor for all the churches, would make a ‘Pastoral Provision’ skewed in favor of one Sui Iuris church over the others.

I have a friend who was converted from the Methodist church into the Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) Metropolia of Pittsburgh, as a minister he was a church planter, a real missionary. He aspired to the priesthood but has never been given the opportunity and I wonder if that is the reason.

I feel bad for him.
Click to expand...
I may be totally way off the mark here, but isn’t there some rule/norm/convention that if a non-Catholic Christian is received into the Catholic Church he’s received into the sui iuris Catholic Church “that most resembles” (for want of any better expression) the Church he’s come from; e.g. if a Bulgarian gentleman left the Orthodox Catholic Church of Bulgaria and was received into communion with the Catholic Church he’d be received into the Bulgarian Catholic Church or at the very least into a Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Church. Now dare I make the next statement. On this premise Protestants would most resemble the Latin Catholic Church so Protestants would always be received in the Latin Catholic Church. I’m sure exceptions may be made but I just see this as the norm.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I may be totally way off the mark here, but isn’t there some rule/norm/convention that if a non-Catholic Christian is received into the Catholic Church he’s received into the sui iuris Catholic Church “that most resembles” (for want of any better expression) the Church he’s come from; e.g. if a Bulgarian gentleman left the Orthodox Catholic Church of Bulgaria and was received into communion with the Catholic Church he’d be received into the Bulgarian Catholic Church or at the very least into a Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Church. Now dare I make the next statement. On this premise Protestants would most resemble the Latin Catholic Church so Protestants would always be received in the Latin Catholic Church. I’m sure exceptions may be made but I just see this as the norm.
Click to expand...
Sure. But it is wrong to use this method of ascribing converts. The system takes over and has a life of it’s own - reason flies out the window.

If the Protestant converts into a Byzantine Catholic parish and understands the theology in this particular way the “system” has got him. He has to be Latin to become a priest, or he can just hit the road.

But he isn’t a Latin, he is spiritually a Byzantine regardless of what the ‘paper’ says. He would be a square peg. The Pastoral Provision as explained here is unfair because the Latin church has a monopoly on the convert ministers who desire to be priests, even though the eastern churches already have a tradition of married priests and they with their families would fit in all the better.

I have seen the opposite phenomena as well: some Orthodox convert to Catholicism spiritually as full-blown Latins … Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Dave Armstrong all down the line, Council of Orange, Opus Dei … the works. But they are ascribed to a “corresponding Eastern Catholic church” automatically. When people complain about Latinizations they should think of this because new members like this will not help them restore the traditions and spirituality in the parish, they will undermine it to whatever extent they have influence in the little parish community, and are themselves best served in a Latin parish anyway.

But that can be fixed and is not so bad as denying a vocation to an experienced married pastor who wants to be a Byzantine priest but granting a vocation once they become resigned to being a Latin. It is totally discriminatory to the Byzantine churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top