How do Orthodox/EC married priests get through seminary?

[Byz_Guy]

**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. **

Nor will Orthodox accept the idea that their tradition of a married clergy needs to be vetted by the Latin Rite Bishops in a Western country and if that passes then they would have to get dispensations from the Eastern Congregation.

It’s time for that practice (needing to get dispensations from Rome to ordain married men to the priesthood) to end in the Eastern Catholic Churches in the West.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

All of this has ramifications for modern times.

As a “cradle” Ruthenian who does pray for unity of the Apostolic Churches, I would have to agree with your premise. However, when speaking of the promise of unity in our modern times, we are on another level. The Ruthenians were (and still are, comparatively) a small group as compared with the population of faithful Orthodox today. A simple agreement, similar to the Union of Uzhhorod or Brest, would not suffice - structural change will be necessary. I would also posit that the very notion of an agreement is simply not applicable in this context. A union based on equality of dignity and self-governance, similar in principle to that which existed in the first millenium, would be the only viable and sustainable path.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Hesychios,

Yes, Clash of the Titans is a classic read. Have you read the extended story in Historical Mirror by Fr. John Slivka?:

archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963

It also covers the schism caused by Cum Data Fuerit.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It’s time for that practice to end in the Eastern Catholic Churches in the West.

Married priesthood? or needing Rome’s permission?

 

[Byz_Guy]

Married priesthood? or needing Rome’s permission?

Fixed that. Thanks. I meant having to get permission from Rome before ordaining married men to the priesthood. Orthodox will never go for that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hesychios,

Yes, Clash of the Titans is a classic read. Have you read the extended story in Historical Mirror by Fr. John Slivka?:

archive.org/details/HistoricalMirrorGreekRiteCatholics1884-1963

It also covers the schism caused by Cum Data Fuerit.

An excellent resource (I’ve read through it in entirety on two separate occasions), yet it is more a collection of historical documents than a threaded story or history. IMO, you need to have a little context beforehand to fully appreciate it. Well worth the investment in time, however, for those who are truly interested.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Fixed that. Thanks. I meant having to get permission from Rome before ordaining married men to the priesthood. Orthodox will never go for that.

• Metropolitan Judson tried, but was pushed back - and that was in 1990. Not a good story to have to share with our Orthodox brothers and sisters …

In fairness, though, he did make some progress in that it was understood that permission would be granted - it must be sought, however, as it was finally decided.

 

[vsedriver]

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

sadly, there’s a high rate of divorce once med school is completed.

 

[dvdjs]

All of this has ramifications for modern times.

Perhaps, but nothing at all like you are suggesting.

First, I think that you read too much into Brest, and read it far too anachronistically. Whatever today’s American neo-orthodox think about ecclesiology - Orthodox or Catholic - has precious little to do with the church in 1600 or even a half millenium before that - notwithstanding the urge the some Orthodox have to ignore the facts of their own history,

More importantly, it should be clear that whatever ecclesiology was plausibly on the peoples minds from 1600-1990, it absolutely did not include the idea of churches moving into and independently establishing parishes - let alone eparchies - within the canonical territory of other bishops. This was not done.

Of course we never had, or likely anticipated, the pattern of enormous immigration that we saw at the turn of the century into the US. It could not reasonably be assumed that the modus vivendi developed in Brest and used in Uzhhorod would simply transfer to the US without some difficult work and settling in. The fact that this settling in took a century - a century that also saw the development of a new perspective of sui juris churches - may be considered painfully slow, but it was actually rather fast as these things go.

And perhaps this history does have a lesson for today. I suppose that we can all agree that no Orthodox jurisdiction would ever defer to another. We see this attitude, which has led to the flaunting of tradition and canons, in the weird ecclesiological structure of Orthodox America. I suppose some Orthodox think that this is a great and virtuous ecclesiology, but I know that others - clergy and hierarchs - see it as evil and wish for some primatial authority that could adjudicate these problems.

So, is the history of the The Greek Catholic churches in America honestly an impediment to re-union? Hardly! It is the very existence of our churches is the major stumbling block - at least in major centers of Orthodoxy. And if the history were important, the lesson to any objective observer is this: with time, even if not without trouble, a better and highly workable framework was worked out in the mere course of a century. How long will we continue to wait for the Orthodox to figure it out? Perhaps if Orthodox spend more time working on their own present problems, than musing about our historical ones, they would make more progress.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Perhaps, but nothing at all like you are suggesting.

First, I think that you read too much into Brest, and read it far too anachronistically. Whatever today’s American neo-orthodox think about ecclesiology - Orthodox or Catholic - has precious little to do with the church in 1600 or even a half millenium before that - notwithstanding the urge the some Orthodox have to ignore the facts of their own history,

More importantly, it should be clear that whatever ecclesiology was plausibly on the peoples minds from 1600-1990, it absolutely did not include the idea of churches moving into and independently establishing parishes - let alone eparchies - within the canonical territory of other bishops. This was not done.

Of course we never had, or likely anticipated, the pattern of enormous immigration that we saw at the turn of the century into the US. It could not reasonably be assumed that the modus vivendi developed in Brest and used in Uzhhorod would simply transfer to the US without some difficult work and settling in. The fact that this settling in took a century - a century that also saw the development of a new perspective of sui juris churches - may be considered painfully slow, but it was actually rather fast as these things go.

And perhaps this history does have a lesson for today. I suppose that we can all agree that no Orthodox jurisdiction would ever defer to another. We see this attitude, which has led to the flaunting of tradition and canons, in the weird ecclesiological structure of Orthodox America. I suppose some Orthodox think that this is a great and virtuous ecclesiology, but I know that others - clergy and hierarchs - see it as evil and wish for some primatial authority that could adjudicate these problems.

So, is the history of the The Greek Catholic churches in America honestly an impediment to re-union? Hardly! It is the very existence of our churches is the major stumbling block - at least in major centers of Orthodoxy. And if the history were important, the lesson to any objective observer is this: with time, even if not without trouble, a better and highly workable framework was worked out in the mere course of a century. How long will we continue to wait for the Orthodox to figure it out? Perhaps if Orthodox spend more time working on their own present problems, than musing about our historical ones, they would make more progress.

So, are you saying the current model of having the Latin Rite Bishops ok the Eastern tradition of ordaining a married clergy and then having to ask Rome for dispensations is something Orthodox should accept? Or, am I misreading you?

 

[Byz_Guy]

An excellent resource (I’ve read through it in entirety on two separate occasions), yet it is more a collection of historical documents than a threaded story or history. IMO, you need to have a little context beforehand to fully appreciate it. Well worth the investment in time, however, for those who are truly interested.

True. If one has a historical bent, however, it’s a gold mine of information.

 

[dvdjs]

So, are you saying the current model of having the Latin Rite Bishops ok the Eastern tradition of ordaining a married clergy and then having to ask Rome for dispensations is something Orthodox should accept? Or, am I misreading you?

First, I cannot honestly say for sure what the current arrangement is. For the BCC it seems that the modus vivendi is to write to seek the approval of Rome on a case by case basis, with the expectation of approval. I think that that is OK.

Our church is not alone in the US, but we have worked out a manner of living respectfully with others. That method includes overlapping eparchies/dioceses and a use of Roman primacy to oversee point of potential conflict. At this stage, Rome’s approval is not bad as it is the trump card against interference of other churches in our affairs. Does it also mean that we will not always have our way? Yes. That is how things work out in families. A system that only champions individual rights, with no recognition and no accounting of how that exercise may lead to conflicts, will inevitably lead to irresolvable conflicts. So I think it is short-sighted - and often just petulant - to complain about the status quo, even as we work to develop better relationship.

I would add, however, that OK is not ideal. The longer term picture is that with greater familiarity among neighbors we will lose the heightened sense of potential conflict and smooth the rough edges that had characterized earlier interactions. The agency of Rome would be of diminishing utility. Even the idea of multiple bishops with overlapping territory might also pass.

It took a century after Uzhhorod for us to to reach eparchial in Austria-Hungary. We got there much faster in the US and have a reasonably workable, if not ideal situation here.
Will our bishops work within this system to ordain married men? Personally, I don’t believe that a preponderance of married priests is an essential feature of Eastern Christianity, so I don’t think that we need to prioritize the issue of married priests as a part of an effort to reclaim traditions. We have far more weighty, essential matters to focus on. So my feeling is that we will ordain married men with caution, when we have to. I may be wrong, but at this point, I think the solicitude comes more from inside than from outside.

 

[Hesychios]

So, are you saying the current model of having the Latin Rite Bishops ok the Eastern tradition of ordaining a married clergy and then having to ask Rome for dispensations is something Orthodox should accept? Or, am I misreading you?

The history of the Ruthenians as a church in the USA is complex.

Long before the Ruthenians started to immigrate to the USA in any significant numbers the Roman Catholic church had already banned all other liturgical rites at the synods of Baltimore. This was not directed against any one particular group east or west but against all of them. Of course, to do that suggests that they were well aware of them. I cannot argue that they did not have the right as a synod to regulate the liturgy withing their own jurisdiction. My concern is that the Papacy did not take that opportunity to inform those American bishops and reiterate the importance of promises the Papacy had made in the name of the entire Latin rite church.

Since the Papacy had already approved of the decrees of Baltimore before the immigration began, the Latin bishops were on pretty solid ground canonically. The fact that the Papacy came into the situation later and removed the Ruthenians from their (the Latin bishops) jurisdiction might have seemed like an act of betrayal, even in some sense overstepping it’s own authority.

Of course, by this time (after 1870) the Papacy had been granted Universal Jurisdiction by a council so it can be argued that it now had the right to separate those church structures according to the Roman Catholic understanding of ecclesiology.

In fact, it is pretty well established that the Papacy only moved on this because the schism was spreading back into Europe, complicating the political situation there. As a smart pastoral move, it seems to have been brought on not by complaints from the faithful of America but by the complaints of the Hungarian government.

The decision to eventually ban the married priesthood might be blamed on complaints from the American bishops, but the Papacy is entirely responsible for making that decision.

An Orthodox reaction to all of this would be difficult to describe.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Long before the Ruthenians started to immigrate to the USA in any significant numbers the Roman Catholic church had already banned all other liturgical rites at the synods of Baltimore. This was not directed against any one particular group east or west but against all of them. Of course, to do that suggests that they were well aware of them. I cannot argue that they did not have the right as a synod to regulate the liturgy withing their own jurisdiction. My concern is that the Papacy did not take that opportunity to inform those American bishops and reiterate the importance of promises the Papacy had made in the name of the entire Latin rite church.

In my study of the history of this subject. I was only recently directed to look at the synods and councils of Baltimore. I could not tell whether this specific prohibition (that is, that only the Roman ritual was to be used in American dioceses) was an outcome of the First Plenary Council of 1852 or an earlier decree, as enactments of the seven previous provincial councils were obligatorily adopted at this First Plenary Council. Do you have any insight?

It seemed as if both (i) the adherence to the Roman ritual / exclusion of other Rites and (ii) the requirement for European priests to present written testimonials and to receive consent of an American ordinary were both resolved by this First Plenary Council, as they were mentioned quite specifically. However I’m not entirely certain from what I’ve seen and read thus far. Again, can you or anyone else offer any clarity on these points? or direct me to a good historical source on these provincial and synodal councils?

 

[andrewstx]

The history of the Ruthenians as a church in the USA is complex.

Long before the Ruthenians started to immigrate to the USA in any significant numbers the Roman Catholic church had already banned all other liturgical rites at the synods of Baltimore. This was not directed against any one particular group east or west but against all of them. Of course, to do that suggests that they were well aware of them. I cannot argue that they did not have the right as a synod to regulate the liturgy withing their own jurisdiction. My concern is that the Papacy did not take that opportunity to inform those American bishops and reiterate the importance of promises the Papacy had made in the name of the entire Latin rite church.

Since the Papacy had already approved of the decrees of Baltimore before the immigration began, the Latin bishops were on pretty solid ground canonically. The fact that the Papacy came into the situation later and removed the Ruthenians from their (the Latin bishops) jurisdiction might have seemed like an act of betrayal, even in some sense overstepping it’s own authority.

Of course, by this time (after 1870) the Papacy had been granted Universal Jurisdiction by a council so it can be argued that it now had the right to separate those church structures according to the Roman Catholic understanding of ecclesiology.

In fact, it is pretty well established that the Papacy only moved on this because the schism was spreading back into Europe, complicating the political situation there. As a smart pastoral move, it seems to have been brought on not by complaints from the faithful of America but by the complaints of the Hungarian government.

The decision to eventually ban the married priesthood might be blamed on complaints from the American bishops, but the Papacy is entirely responsible for making that decision.

An Orthodox reaction to all of this would be difficult to describe.

Was it not the poor treatment of Russyn catholics in the US that gave birth to the Orthodox Church in America? Once known as the Greek Catholic Russian Orthodox Church?

They were treated very poorly, and practically forced to become Latin Catholics?

 

[andrewstx]

Orthodox are know to frequently to graduate seminary, then marry and finally seek ordination.

I think that is a sensible solution.

 

[Hesychios]

Was it not the poor treatment of Russyn catholics in the US that gave birth to the Orthodox Church in America? Once known as the Greek Catholic Russian Orthodox Church?

The Russian Metropolia existed before that time, but it grew considerably with the incorporation of Ruthenian Catholics, immigrants from both the sub-Carpathian region and also Galicia.

They were treated very poorly, and practically forced to become Latin Catholics?

I don’t know if it can be put in exactly those terms, but there were problems.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Was it not the poor treatment of Russyn catholics in the US that gave birth to the Orthodox Church in America? Once known as the Greek Catholic Russian Orthodox Church?

Some also went on to form ACROD, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Hesychios]

Some also went on to form ACROD, if I’m not mistaken.

From 1892 to about 1907 there was a dribble of Eastern Catholics across the USA to the Russian Metropolia. Then in 1907 Ea Semper was issued and the process accelerated somewhat. Saint Alexis died in 1909. With the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 there was so much turmoil in the Russian church that I am sure it had a dampening effect on conversions, perhaps it even stopped.

Then there was Cum Data Fuerit in 1929, and a whole new generation of Byzantine Catholics considered leaving. This was the period when ACROD started to come together as an idea. The 1930’s was also a period when (around Chicago, where I am from) several new Ruthenian parishes were established in the Russian Metropolia, as I have come to discover, so it is clear that the Ruthenians were still seriously considering the Russian church as a viable alternative to Rome.

ACROD was actually formed by Eastern Catholic priests in the late 1930’s ( 45 years or more after the bishop Ireland event). This seems to indicate a long period of indecision on the part of the founders considering that the ban on married priests (Cum Data Fuerit) was issued in 1929, almost ten years elapsed. Since a portion at least of these priests were in their 30’s and 40s they were not even born yet when Father Alexis took the first congregation out, and I suspect that a good many of them were born and trained in the USA. The ACROD event was quite a different one than the movement started by Saint Alexis.

Actually, I think that the ACROD schism had just as much to do with the Vatican instructing bishop Takach to collect the titles to the parishes. Some congregations had reached a point where the important element of trust was gone and they were going to get out while they could.

At the same time these things were happening among the Ruthenians, a similar series of events was occurring among the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

 

[Deacon_Yuhanna]

When I spent a year at the Maronite seminary at Karam Saddeh we had married men. Most of them lived there, but one, who worked as an academic, just visited to do certain courses. The others all either received a stipend from their Bishop or else had already saved up enough money for their family to continue while they studied. It wasn’t easy, and their families didn’t live the high life. But these weer adult men who’d had good careers and whose children were at least in school, if not graduating. They lived like the rest of us except that they only had to live in one weekend a month. It can be done. It isn’t hard, but then seminary life is often the most valuable when it involves sacrifice. Of course, their wives and families were generous in their repsonse to their husbands’ and fathers’ vocations and deserve full credit. Yours in Christ, Deacon Yuhanna