How do Orthodox/EC married priests get through seminary?

[DL82]

On another thread here someone mentioned the lack of married seminarians in the Ruthenian Church in America as evidence of Latinization and the imposition of the Roman norm of celibacy. However, I was thinking, how would a married man support his way through 6 years of seminary with a wife and (assuming they are open to life) kids.

I know Protestant seminarians do it, but often they don’t marry until they are already in ministry, or they hold off having kids until they have a good income.

My engagement happened while I was in the final year of grad school, and I was lucky to have a very good funded scholarship, the kind that only a few hundred students in the UK get, and even so, saving for marriage was really hard, I needed to move back in with my parents for part of it. I can’t imagine having a wife and kids on that salary for more than a year or two.

I have heard that in the East, being a priest’s wife is seen as a vocation in its own right - so I am guessing most of them would want to dedicate lots of time to motherhood and have lots of time to volunteer for the Church, so not holding down a full-time job as well.

Also, how would the living arrangements work, are Orthodox and Eastern Catholic seminaries non-residential, or built around a street of separate houses? I can’t imagine a bunch of families living in the kind of close quarters Roman rite seminarians put up with.

The Eastern Catholics, it seems, want this to happen, the Orthodox already do it, and many in the Roman Catholic Church would like to see it introduced too, so how do the practicalities work?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Some married men simply are not put through seminary. For example, there’s a married man in my parish who is on his way to priestly ordination (he was ordained deacon last year) who will not be attending seminary. This is primarily because he already has an M.A. in theology. Basically, from what I’ve been told, he’s receiving some liturgical and pastoral formation from our pastor. I presume he will also have to attend a number of retreats as well. But since he already has at least one advanced degree in theology and has been working in a Catholic educational setting for some years, the bishop decided to forgo any seminary training.

Some seminaries, like St. Vladimir’s (which is sometimes attended by Eastern Catholic men on the road to ordination), have residences for married couples and families. They also make it possible for the folks to work on campus during the seminary years. I don’t know how Sts. Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary would handle married seminarians.

Another option, which is common in Eastern Europe (especially Ukraine) is that the seminarians will date throughout their time in seminary, then shortly before ordination (sometimes only a week before) they will get married.

Obviously not only the priest’s wife, but the entire family shares a special vocation. In order for a married man to make it through seminary training he would have to have the support of his wife and his children (if they have any). Without this support I’d imagine he wouldn’t last long in seminary. Also, it’d be important that they as a family have the support of whatever parish they will be serving (traditionally married priests serve their home parish and aren’t moved around much by the bishop), and the support of the diocese as a whole would be helpful as well.

 

[Hesychios]

I think we need clarification of the circumstances. I am not sure of all of this but I would like to comment.

There doesn’t seem to be much discussion about single men going to seminary with the intention to marry later, I don’t know if the Ruthenian bishops are interested in these men, perhaps I missed it. So far the only discussion I am aware of involves admitting committed celibates (the tradition in straight conformity with Latin church practice) and the new policy of admitting married men to seminary (with the expressed approval of the spouse, I am sure). We usually only think about two possibilities.

I am not sure about this but it seems that with the Ruthenian Catholics the candidate is ‘pre-approved’ by a bishop (presumably his current bishop, but perhaps the one he will serve under is different) and after this approval admitted to seminary. For Orthodox it can be different, one can go sometimes take seminary studies beforehand, and then be accepted by a bishop and diocese sometime after completion (something like Philip mentions above).

In Orthodox churches a man may attend seminary as a single person, and date women. I doubt that the Ruthenians of the Pittsburgh Metropolia have entertained this possibility yet, it seems they want to know the candidate and approve of him beforehand, and if he is married know his wife and approve the whole arrangement beforehand too (perhaps I have the wrong impression).

For Orthodox if the candidate has not married by the time he graduates, but is not a professed monastic, his ordination will be postponed until after he has become married. So one can see that this will mean the candidate will have to take on other work until that time comes (as it were, dating and having a nice time in social situations along the way). For these men (a significant percentage) they will be white clergy but do not require housing and support for a family.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hesychios,

In many ways the situation you describe, while true, is unique to the Eastern Catholic Churches in the United States. None of the bishops from any of the dioceses or eparchies (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, etc.) really seem to encourage single young seminarians to date, to my knowledge. This could be for a number of reasons, and I can only speculate:

1. perhaps it simply hasn’t crossed their mind?
2. it could be a hold-over from the laws in regards to ordination as a married deacon. Married deacons are expected to be over the age of 30 and in a marriage that has lasted 10 years or more.

With the new Eparch for the Melkites, Kyr Nicholas, we could see a slow but steady change. In his first pastoral letter to the Eparchy he spoke of the need for priests and explicitly encouraged wives to foster priestly vocations in their husbands as well as their children. Kyr Nicholas really seems to be pushing for a fuller restoration of the married priesthood among the Melkites in the U.S. I know it was done, to some extent, under his predecessors, but I believe they always tried to keep things quiet. Kyr Nicholas sure doesn’t seem to be hiding the fact that he plans on ordaining married men.

I don’t expect things to change for the Ruthenians, given their current situation and their new Metropolitan. From what I’ve learned about Vladyka Skurla, he is a good man, but can be expected to maintain the status quo. Perhaps that is why Rome selected him from the list. They know he won’t cause waves, and thus they will have less trouble to deal with from those pesky Eastern Catholics in the U.S. I merely speculate, of course.

Anyhow, tangent aside, it is the norm for single Eastern Catholic seminarians to date, at least in Eastern Europe (can’t speak for the Middle East). I myself have known a few seminarians, one of whom was engaged and was married the week before he was ordained, another who was dating a young lady and has since married her, and a third who was dating, but considering remaining celibate and possibly offering himself for service in the U.S.

My personal opinion, with regards to seminarians dating here in the U.S., is that it should ideally be permitted among Eastern Catholics, but the time is not yet right. I can almost guarantee that it would cause a great deal of scandal among our Roman brethren to hear that there are seminarians who are dating, but still permitted to remain in seminary. A good deal of work has to be done in educating our Roman brethren before we can fully reinstate this particular custom. There are still far too many Roman Catholics who don’t even think Eastern Catholics are really Catholic. Some simply can’t get their minds around the notion of a married priest. Can you imagine the reaction if they discovered that Eastern Catholic bishops were allowing seminarians to date?! :big yikes:

So for now we must follow the advise of St. Paul and not cause scandal to our brethren, or put a stumbling block in front of them. God willing, these things won’t always be such major issues. One day, after a great deal of work and educations has been done, I hope that Eastern Catholics in the U.S. will be able to simply be themselves without having to worry about causing scandal, being stumbling blocks or whatever.

Okay, tangent over.

 

[dochawk]

My personal opinion, with regards to seminarians dating here in the U.S., is that it should ideally be permitted among Eastern Catholics, but the time is not yet right. I can almost guarantee that it would cause a great deal of scandal among our Roman brethren to hear that there are seminarians who are dating, but still permitted to remain in seminary. A good deal of work has to be done in educating our Roman brethren before we can fully reinstate this particular custom. There are still far too many Roman Catholics who don’t even think Eastern Catholics are really Catholic. Some simply can’t get their minds around the notion of a married priest. Can you imagine the reaction if they discovered that Eastern Catholic bishops were allowing seminarians to date?! :big yikes:

But think of whom they’ll be dating.

Pittsburgh has a high concentration of BC, but we’re talking about the entire country’s worth of BC seminarians in a single city. I would expect them to be dating more RC girls than BC . . .

 

[couponfit]

On another thread here someone mentioned the lack of married seminarians in the Ruthenian Church in America as evidence of Latinization and the imposition of the Roman norm of celibacy. However, I was thinking, how would a married man support his way through 6 years of seminary with a wife and (assuming they are open to life) kids.

I know Protestant seminarians do it, but often they don’t marry until they are already in ministry, or they hold off having kids until they have a good income.

My engagement happened while I was in the final year of grad school, and I was lucky to have a very good funded scholarship, the kind that only a few hundred students in the UK get, and even so, saving for marriage was really hard, I needed to move back in with my parents for part of it. I can’t imagine having a wife and kids on that salary for more than a year or two.

I have heard that in the East, being a priest’s wife is seen as a vocation in its own right - so I am guessing most of them would want to dedicate lots of time to motherhood and have lots of time to volunteer for the Church, so not holding down a full-time job as well.

Also, how would the living arrangements work, are Orthodox and Eastern Catholic seminaries non-residential, or built around a street of separate houses? I can’t imagine a bunch of families living in the kind of close quarters Roman rite seminarians put up with.

The Eastern Catholics, it seems, want this to happen, the Orthodox already do it, and many in the Roman Catholic Church would like to see it introduced too, so how do the practicalities work?

Some way married men get hrough 9 years of med school or vice versa.

 

[dochawk]

.

There doesn’t seem to be much discussion about single men going to seminary with the intention to marry later, I don’t know if the Ruthenian bishops are interested in these men, perhaps I missed it. So far the only discussion I am aware of involves admitting committed celibates (the tradition in straight conformity with Latin church practice) and the new policy of admitting married men to seminary (with the expressed approval of the spouse, I am sure).

There were definitely married candidates at Cyryl & Methodius a few years ago; I dont know whatever happened to them.

I don’t know whether it was +William (now designated as our Metopolitan in a couple of months) or his predecessor in Van Nuys (now Phoenix) that had a seminarian fall in love during his per-ordination parish assignment. He helped the candidate find another bishop that would ordain him (a Canadian UC, I think).

Our current bishop, +Gerald, has imported at least one married priest so far; I discussed him with it a couple of years ago. He is open to more, and planned on getting more from the same seminary if the first worked out (it’s generating more priests than it can place, all married!). He told me at the biggest single problem was finding health insurance, as he couldn’t use the regular policy . . .

We had a youngish concelebrate a couple of months ago from another of the formerly Ruthenian ear hides who was here for vacation or a seminar (we get a lot of both), who is married.

Hawk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There were definitely married candidates at Cyryl & Methodius a few years ago; I dont know whatever happened to them.

Our current bishop, +Gerald, has imported at least one married priest so far; I discussed him with it a couple of years ago. He is open to more, and planned on getting more from the same seminary if the first worked out (it’s generating more priests than it can place, all married!).

Hawk - I assume in this second paragraph that you are referring to our Eastern European seminaries. As far as can be told, (i) the Ruthenian seminary of Sts. Cyril & Methodius is not admitting candidates from and for its own Metropolia who are not prepared to commit to celebate life and (ii) we are still predicting a shortage of priests in the US, given the number of priests in the Metropolia who are nearing, at or have surpassed retirement age.

This gap is being selectively filled in part with married priests from Eastern Europe or other EC particular churches. I know of three at present; one each in Passaic, Parma and Phoenix (there may be more). So far, I know of only one married person being ordained since our current Norms of Particular Law were promulgated in 1990 - a married deacon of the Eparchy of Parma was elevated to the priesthood in 2006. He was married at the time, with grown children as I recall.

Given that the seminaries in Presov and Uzhhorod are seemingly producing priests in abundance and excess of their local needs, I would assume that we will continue to selectively accept some of them here in the US for our pastoral needs.

And yes, I was aware of at least two candidates in + Metropolitan Judson’s time that were training and had intentions of marrying, but they left and eventually became priests with ACROD.

I pray that we see married US born Ruthenian seminarians in my lifetime, but it stills seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.

 

[Filii_Dei]

For Orthodox if the candidate has not married by the time he graduates, but is not a professed monastic, his ordination will be postponed until after he has become married. So one can see that this will mean the candidate will have to take on other work until that time comes (as it were, dating and having a nice time in social situations along the way). For these men (a significant percentage) they will be white clergy but do not require housing and support for a family.

Brother Hesychios, this is an interesting point that you bring up. I have not yet encountered any Eastern priests (at least not in the Byzantine Rite) who are not monastics and yet single. According to what you say, they will not be granted ordination until they find a wife and marry. Why is this so? Is it not permissible for them to be priests despite being neither married nor monastic?

 

[Hesychios]

Brother Hesychios, this is an interesting point that you bring up. I have not yet encountered any Eastern priests (at least not in the Byzantine Rite) who are not monastics and yet single. According to what you say, they will not be granted ordination until they find a wife and marry. Why is this so? Is it not permissible for them to be priests despite being neither married nor monastic?

I have been a way for a while, and still with limited access, but I saw this and I thought I could respond quickly …

This is for those who intend to be married priests. They can go to seminary and prepare while not yet having a spouse. If by the time they graduate they have not yet found ‘miss right’ they can wait, there is no rush. The point being that the bishop will not pressure them to take a vow of celibacy, if they were not called to that life initially they will not be ordained until they have made a suitable life-match.

Another point that I believe is confusing you is that in the east (or at least in Orthodoxy) the black clergy (celibate) are considered to be monastics (even if they live alone in a parish). Most monastics are not clergy, usually there will be just enough for the needs of the house and no more, occasionally those who are raised to the responsibility are given parish assignments as well. Sometimes such men are given parish assignments far from their home community, but this is far from ideal because separation from the community is considered a particular hardship.

I have met (and known of) priests who converted to the Orthodox church. One was once a Lutheran pastor who had never married and was accepted as a celibate. He doesn’t live in community because he always wished to do parish work, but he is still considered a monk (in fact I believe he is an Archimandrite) but I don’t know if he ever actually lived in a monastery, or if so how long he was there. The point being that all celibates (with the exception of widowed priests) are categorized as monastics. [In fact those who live out in the parishes are more like urban hermits, but that is not a term we usually use to describe them.]
Thus, in an Orthodox seminary one will encounter some already professed monastics who were sent for studies by their community, and these will only require living space for themselves. Also there will be some unmarried men preparing for ordination, who only require single housing, but are also able to date and mix with single women off campus. A third category would be some students who along the way have gotten married (and might even have children already), and these will have special housing needs.*

 

[Byz_Guy]

Anyhow, tangent aside, it is the norm for single Eastern Catholic seminarians to date, at least in Eastern Europe (can’t speak for the Middle East). I myself have known a few seminarians, one of whom was engaged and was married the week before he was ordained, another who was dating a young lady and has since married her, and a third who was dating, but considering remaining celibate and possibly offering himself for service in the U.S.

My personal opinion, with regards to seminarians dating here in the U.S., is that it should ideally be permitted among Eastern Catholics, but the time is not yet right. I can almost guarantee that it would cause a great deal of scandal among our Roman brethren to hear that there are seminarians who are dating, but still permitted to remain in seminary. A good deal of work has to be done in educating our Roman brethren before we can fully reinstate this particular custom. There are still far too many Roman Catholics who don’t even think Eastern Catholics are really Catholic. Some simply can’t get their minds around the notion of a married priest. Can you imagine the reaction if they discovered that Eastern Catholic bishops were allowing seminarians to date?! :big yikes:

So for now we must follow the advise of St. Paul and not cause scandal to our brethren, or put a stumbling block in front of them. God willing, these things won’t always be such major issues. One day, after a great deal of work and educations has been done, I hope that Eastern Catholics in the U.S. will be able to simply be themselves without having to worry about causing scandal, being stumbling blocks or whatever.

Okay, tangent over.

Isn’t the REAL problem that people in the Latin Rite are not instructed that the Eastern tradition is just as valid and equal in dignity to the Latin tradition?

Problem is, Rome’s commitment to mandatory celibacy in the West prevents her from doing so. That’s the REAL reason why over a hundred years after Ea Semper (1907), the Eastern tradition is still a “cause of confusion and scandal.”

For those interested in a bit of history on this, The Ecclesiastical Review in 1907 gave some history of the problem and an overview of Ea Semper here:

archive.org/stream/EaSemper1907/Ea_Semper_1907#page/n9/mode/2up

Over a hundred years ago, it was stated:

**Before considering Rome’s answer to this request, it is
necessary to state that the lack of harmonious action between
the bishops of the United States and the clergy of the Greek
rite in communion with the Holy See, arose partly from
the novelty of the situation suddenly brought about by the
large influx from Austria-Hungary of immigrants who had a
liturgy obviously different from the Roman liturgy, and an ec-
clesiastical discipline which appeared to depart somewhat from
the accepted canons of Apostolic tradition as interpreted in
the Latin Church. The fact that some of the Greek priests
who claim doctrinal allegiance to Rome and jurisdictional de-
pendence upon the Holy See, were married men; that they
ignored the ecclesiastical authorities in America, and claimed
the right of exercising pastoral faculties under a title granted
them by their former Ordinaries in Europe, caused a protest
on the part of the American bishops against the introduction of
a foreign rite into a country to whose population such novelty
would be a source of confusion.

A few pages earlier is the Latin text of Ea Semper – see articles 10 and 12.

From article 10 re: Ruthenians in US seminaries:

But only celibates can be admitted, whether now or in the future, and be promoted to sacred orders.

From article 12 re: importing priests from the old country:

The priest that is chosen, is celibate, or at least widowed and having no children…

Towards the end of the above file is the reaction by the first US Eastern Catholic Bishop, Soter Ortynsky to Ea Semper.

The era of “it’s not time yet” is LONG past, IMO.

 

[Hesychios]

Isn’t the REAL problem that people in the Latin Rite are not instructed that the Eastern tradition is just as valid and equal in dignity to the Latin tradition?

Problem is, Rome’s commitment to mandatory celibacy in the West prevents her from doing so. That’s the REAL reason why over a hundred years after Ea Semper (1907), the Eastern tradition is still a “cause of confusion and scandal.”

For some reason, Ea Semper didn’t take. I suspect that the pressure was [unofficially] let off because of the negative impact it had on the efforts to contain the ongoing schism. After the Bolshevik revolution and the subsequent cooling of passions among the Ruthenians the instruction had to be repeated in Cum Data Feurit in 1929 (provoking, as such, a second schism). I suppose this was due to another request from the Latin rite hierarchy.

Interesting letter from Rome to Bishop Basil Takach:
stlouis.byzcath.org/links.htm#links

Sacred Oriental Congregation.
Prot. No. 572-30

Rome, July 23, 1934
(Borgo, Nuovo, 76.)

Your Excellency:

It is certainly not without profound pain that the Holy See has had to realize that, among the Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian Rite in the United States of America, and in particular among the clergy and faithful of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenian Ordinariate, grave agitations and deplorable rebellions are being intensified and expanded on the pretext that this Sacred Congregation had threatened the rights and privileges of the Ruthenian Church.

But your Excellency knows well how, under the appearance of vast questions, there lies prevalently that much more restricted question, which has its origin in the regulation of article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit of March 1,1929, and by which was again decreed what had already been prescribed since 1890; that is to say, “that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates.” This regulation indeed was not and is not a “lex de coelibatu apud clerum graecoruthenum,” as some have wanted to affirm. By it, nothing has been modified or changed in that particular Ruthenian ecclesiastical discipline, to which, in so far as it concerns the privilege of a married clergy, the Holy See has consented and still does consent. This regulation arose not now, but anew, from the peculiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. There it represents an immigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore, pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions which are in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs and traditions of Catholicism in the United States, and much less to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.

And, moreover, when the Holy See recognized the peculiarities of the Greek Ruthenian Church and guaranteed them, it intended principally - as is evident from the Decree of Union of 1596, during the Pontificate of Clement VII, and of the Brief of Paul V of 1615 - to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians.

As regards their particular canonical discipline, the Holy See could not have affirmed its integral application at all times and in all places without taking into account the different exigencies and circumstances. Thus one can well understand how a married clergy, permitted in those places where the Greek Ruthenian Rite originated and constitutes a predominant element, could hardly be advisable in places where the same Rite has been imported and finds an environment and mentality altogether different.

Let it not be said that the regulation of Cum Data Fuerit was new legislation, since the preceding Decree Cum Episcopo (August 17, 1914) - issued as a modification of the Constitution Ea Semper (June 14, 1907) - did not make any mention of it.

The fact that no mention was made of it in the Decree Cum Episcopo was not due in any way to a revocation of the regulation, adopted since 1890 and solemnly called to mind on several occasions; on the contrary, it was due to an indulgent attitude of the Holy See taken in view of the statements of the Ruthenian Bishops in Europe to the effect that the number of unmarried priests in their dioceses was still too few and that they could not very well reduce that number by aligning some of them to the spiritual assistance of the Ruthenian faithful in America. And that this was so is proven clearly by the fact that in the years from 1914 to 1929 - that is during the period in which the regulation in question did not appear - the Holy See upheld in practice the same regulation, which continued to be known to the entire Ruthenian hierarchy and clergy so much so that when the Ordinary of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenians in the United States of America deemed it necessary in 1925 to ordain some married clerics, he asked the Holy See to permit him, by way of exception to do so. The Holy See in acceding to the request, took care to emphasize the exceptional nature of the permission and to add “exclausa quavis spe futurarum ordinationum.”

As the situtation changed for the better, it seemed well that the decree of March 1, 1929, should state again, explicitly, that which in fact had never been abrogated. And so much the more so, because the regulation in question does not concern exclusively the Ruthenian clergy, but applies without exception to priests of all Rites.

{continued below - letter split due to lack of space …}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

But the Decree was accompanied on the part of the Holy See by an attitude of the greatest discretion and indulgence; so that even after it, no action was taken to send away from the United States those married Ruthenian priests who had already immigrated there in opposition to the regulation which would have forbidden them to do so; and these priests were not disturbed even when some of them showed themselves to be partisans of an altogether deplorable movement of hostility against their bishop and against the Holy See itself.

In the face of the simplicity and the logic of what article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit disposes, it seemed immediately evident that some sought to bemuddle the situation, deceiving the ingenuous minds of the faithful by a misleading and a malign interpretation of every act emanating from the Holy See and put into effect by the Ordinary, Bishop Takach. And if there would have been any doubt about this, it would have been dissipated at lengths by what happened in the Convention, promoted by the KOVO and held in Pittsburgh from July 26 to 28, 1933 a meeting of intents and manifestations clearly schismatic, even to the extent of threatening the Holy See that unless it had - within sixty days - granted what was requested in the resolutions of the convention, the delegates at Pittsburgh and the people whom they represented would declare themselves “independent of Rome.” A tremendous statement, which, however, was not surprising because it revealed without possiblity of further doubt, the true motives of a complete campaign of the press, of meetings, of protestations, of rebellions, of schisms, which under the cloak of the defense of the privileges of the Ruthenian Church had already grievously offended against the spirit of reverence and obedience to the Ordinary - even to the extent of depriving him of almost every means of substinence - and weakened the very attachment to the Catholic Faith . . .

Therefore, let every dissension and - every suspicion by banished, so that there may be reestablished, in the pride of the common Catholic faith and in fraternal sentiments inspired by a common origin and membership in the same Rite, that mutual charity which should bind closely together all the Ruthenian people in America with their Bishop and clergy, and make of them, even in that land far distant from their native county, a magnificent appeal to dissidents to return to the unity of the Catholic faith.

Your Excellency, who by reason of long practice of office and of affection, has closely at heart the spiritual welfare of the Ruthenian people in the United States, will convey to all the good people, and first of all to Bishop Takach - so sorely and unjustly tried - the trustful word of the Holy Father, who, the guardian of ecclesiastical discipline by reasons of his apostolic ministry, desires that the exact observance of whatever regulations this Sacred Congregation has issued be, on the part of the Ruthenian Church in the United States of America, the most worthy proof of its Catholic faith and of its willingness to live, increase and flourish in works of holiness.

May there descend upon Bishop Takach, his clergy, his faithful - and among them, upon also those who are sorry for their transgressions and return to the proper disposition, the comforting and vivifying blessing of Almighty God, which the Holy Father, through the intercession of the most glorious Virgin Mother, invokes generously and with a fervent prayer that it may be abundant in heavenly graces.

With sentiments of esteem and best wishes, I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Luigi Cardinal Sincero
Bishop of Palestrina, Sicily
G. Cesarini, Assessor

In this letter, the language of consent is used. Rome consented to the Ruthenians keeping their own traditions, but the denial of a married clergy in the USA is not a violation of that promise in the opinion of the Holy See.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Hesychios,

Bishop Ortynsky said in his response (contained in that file I referred to above) that he refused to promulgate Ea Semper to his faithful and apparently he got away with it.

That’s quite a letter you cite. As I understand, it was never meant for publication but it fell into the hands of priests who defected to ACROD in response to Cum Data Fuerit and was given the light of day there.

Speaking of Cum Data Fuerit, it can be read online here:

archive.org/details/CumDataFuerit1929

The Ruthenian Bishop (Takach) apparently objected to Cum Data Fuerit but after all appeals were spent, followed it.

One wonders what might have happened if Bishop Takach had gotten away with ignoring the part about not ordaining married men?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Bishop Ortynsky said in his response (contained in that file I referred to above) that he refused to promulgate Ea Semper to his faithful and apparently he got away with it.

Not really - that’s why Cum Data Fuerit was issued!

 

[dochawk]

Hawk - I assume in this second paragraph that you are referring to our Eastern European seminaries. As far as can be told, (i) the Ruthenian seminary of Sts. Cyril & Methodius is not admitting candidates from and for its own Metropolia who are not prepared to commit to celebate life and (ii) we are still predicting a shortage of priests in the US, given the number of priests in the Metropolia who are nearing, at or have surpassed retirement age.

I don’t know what it’s doing now, but I’ve been told of its having married candidates off and on for about a decade now.

I know that +Gerald is open to the possibilityof ordaining US married men, but I don’t know of any being on the way.

I do know that our current Diaconal candidate was turned down by C&M after being approved by +Gerald, and is instead going through the Ukranian seminary–which takes them three days at a time on the weekend, rather than a single two-week summer session.

hawk

 

[CDB1718]

How do Orthodox/EC married priests get through seminary?

The same way celibate priests do: with the grace and protection of the Lord.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In this letter, the language of consent is used. Rome consented to the Ruthenians keeping their own traditions, but the denial of a married clergy in the USA is not a violation of that promise in the opinion of the Holy See.

The term “consent” was used in this letter to refer to some very specific, then recent actions, where the Holy See agreed to specific, exceptional relief from Ea Semper / Cum Data Feurit.

Broadly, Rome agreed to permit the Ruthenians to maintain their discipline and traditions in the Union of Uzhhorod (and so much as confirmed such in this letter). However, when it came to the Ruthenian immigrants in America, Rome then argued that this agreement only applied to the Ruthenian Church and its faithful in their native lands. It is from this logic and interpretation that Rome insisted it had not violated the promises of the Union of Uzhhorod.

The limited, specific relief from Ea Semper / Cum Data Fuerit alluded to in this letter at times had some unintended detrimental consequences. As mentioned, Rome had granted on an exceptional basis a petition to allow a certain number of married priests to be ordained, given a shortage of clergy. At the time, there were two brothers preparing for the priesthood. One had been granted permission to marry, the other had not. It was a source of great disappointment for the unmarried brother, yet he did remain faithful to the Catholic Church. The inability of the Bishop to have the exceptional permission extended to the other brother was seen as another setback in the eyes of certain faithful and clergy who were most outspoken in this matter.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s quite a letter you cite. As I understand, it was never meant for publication but it fell into the hands of priests who defected to ACROD in response to Cum Data Fuerit and was given the light of day there.

Perhaps that is so.

However I believe that the page I referenced is a Byzantine Catholic site, so the cat’s out of the bag so to say. That people should wish to know and understand the full scope of their own history is quite understandable.

I suppose that you have read the ‘Clash’ of the Titans by Father Stockert. For those who are not familiar with the saga I think it gives more context to the issue of mandatory celibacy and besides it makes an interesting story.

 

[Hesychios]

The term “consent” was used in this letter to refer to some very specific, then recent actions, where the Holy See agreed to specific, exceptional relief from Ea Semper / Cum Data Feurit.

Broadly, Rome agreed to permit the Ruthenians to maintain their discipline and traditions in the Union of Uzhhorod (and so much as confirmed such in this letter). However, when it came to the Ruthenian immigrants in America, Rome then argued that this agreement only applied to the Ruthenian Church and its faithful in their native lands. It is from this logic and interpretation that Rome insisted it had not violated the promises of the Union of Uzhhorod.

The limited, specific relief from Ea Semper / Cum Data Fuerit alluded to in this letter at times had some unintended detrimental consequences. As mentioned, Rome had granted on an exceptional basis a petition to allow a certain number of married priests to be ordained, given a shortage of clergy. At the time, there were two brothers preparing for the priesthood. One had been granted permission to marry, the other had not. It was a source of great disappointment for the unmarried brother, yet he did remain faithful to the Catholic Church. The inability of the Bishop to have the exceptional permission extended to the other brother was seen as another setback in the eyes of certain faithful and clergy who were most outspoken in this matter.

All of this has ramifications for modern times.

The so-called promises were not in fact granted to Pod Carpathians as far as I know, they were granted to the Ruthenian bishops of Poland [what would be Belarus and Ukraine], and then ‘offered’ to the priests of Pod Carpathian Ruthenia the kingdom of Hungary.

Now it seems to me that when the Kievan Rus bishops of Poland constructed their 33 demands as conditions before agreeing to union with the bishop of Rome. In other words they were arguing from a position of strength. They saw themselves as quite free and capable of placing conditions on the relationship and their willingness to commune.

To wit: We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church.

How familiar this all seems. These were Orthodox bishops who were willing to enter into communion with the See at Rome, but also standing their ground. These were not bishops who believed in universal Papal jurisdiction, or they would not have ever considered placing conditions on the relationship. They would have eagerly sought direction from Rome and done whatever was required of them for it.

Unfortunately, they never had a chance. They overlooked the fact that the king of Poland controlled the naming of their bishop-successors for them, and when that ended the control fell to the Pope at Rome. Once that happened the demands of the first Orthodox bishops were not worth the paper they were written on.

Much later of course, the Vatican Council defined papal Universal jurisdiction, a dogma the Orthodox bishops meeting at Brest in 1596 had never heard of (it probably would have been a deal-breaker). And the formerly Orthodox churches of the unions of Brest and Uzhorod have had to accept the new dogma and the code of canon law. The promises made at Brest were not mutual agreements after all, they were consents and permissions.

Orthodox will never agree to Papal Universal jurisdiction, they will never allow the See at Rome to take such liberties with them. This episode is a textbook case in how badly wrong things can go.

It is unfortunate.