Married Clergy and Papal Authority

[Formosus]

The Pope enforced celibacy on Eastern Catholic clergy in America by papal decree in the late 1920s. If he did it once I’m sure he could do it again if he so deisres. However, this is very unlikely to happen again. In fact, the more probable is the repealing of celibacy enforcement on all clegy from any rite.

I think its fair to say that this enforcement was illegal. Hence why it was repealed and no longer applies.

 

[Dan-Man916]

So Eastern Catholic clergy may NOT be married in the US? I thought that at least the UGC’s could…

Technically, they “could”, but that they could was mostly in theory only as the practice was surpressed by the Latin Bishops in the USCCB.

The Pope needs to let the Eastern Churches be Eastern Churches. He is the first among equals and does have an authority that comes from being first among equals.
There needs to be a paradigm shift in Rome that recognizes that the supremecy of the pope does not equate to having everything centralized, and that this authority does not mean that the Pope can or should micro-manage everything, even his Latin Rite Bishops.

 

[Formosus]

Technically, they “could”, but that they could was mostly in theory only as the practice was surpressed by the Latin Bishops in the USCCB.

The Pope needs to let the Eastern Churches be Eastern Churches. He is the first among equals and does have an authority that comes from being first among equals.
There needs to be a paradigm shift in Rome that recognizes that the supremecy of the pope does not equate to having everything centralized, and that this authority does not mean that the Pope can or should micro-manage everything, even his Latin Rite Bishops.

I don’t know what you mean by technically they could. I hear two thirds of the Ukrainian Catholic clergy in this country are married. My own pastor is a married priest. The USCCB( Council of Baltimore) did try to supress our married clergy, the Popes went along with it for a bit, and then Rome realized its error in VII and called on Eastern Churches to return to their roots.

 

[Hesychios]

Keep in mind, infalibility does not protect from disciplinary decisions, only matters of faith and morals.

I agree, but I find it interesting.

A pope within the council, by some theories, none of which meet the defined heresy of conciliarism, subjects himself to the will of the council by his participation as a bishop. It is clear that, when a council is held without the pope as primus, the council is subject to the pope, not superior; but far more ancient canons bind a primus to the synodal decisions when he calls a synod to council; that the pope is so bound has not been specifically countered by any council I’ve heard of. (Nor has it been explicitly endorsed.) It does fall short of the Concilliarist heresy.

It sems as though one would have to posit two roles for the bishop of Rome then.

One as a participant, if he participates.

One as the Pope, who may apply a “line item” veto to any of the findings or decisions of that Council, may reject entire sessions or the entire Council after the conclusion.

Your point about the participation suddenly interested me, because as I recall Pio Nonno did not participate in the Vatican Council of 1870AD, however I may be wrong about that.

If it is a fact that he did not participate then the next question would have to be “why not?”. I can think of a number of good possible reasons.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

The Pope enforced celibacy on Eastern Catholic clergy in America by papal decree in the late 1920s. If he did it once I’m sure he could do it again if he so deisres.

Actually, the enforcement of celibacy was declared twice.

The first time apparently did not stick.

I think its fair to say that this enforcement was illegal. …

You and I may share that opinion, but I am pretty sure the Vatican would not. If pressed I believe it would have to assert that it has this “power” still.

Obviously, a lot of people in the Latin church think so, since we have seen in recent decades the Latin bishops of both Poland and Italy ask that married UGCC priests be recalled from their countries. Pretty much a replay of what happened in the USA and France 100 years ago.

… Hence why it was repealed and no longer applies.

In fact, I believe it would be more correct to state that the prohibition lapsed, or possibly that it was subordinated to something else (like the call for Eastern churches to return to the original patrimony, or the release of the CCEO). I do not think that it was ever formally repealed, repudiated or judged to have been incorrect.

 

[Dan-Man916]

I don’t know what you mean by technically they could.

I simpy meant to say that the practice had been supressed.

I hear two thirds of the Ukrainian Catholic clergy in this country are married.

I don’t really know the numbers. To my knowledge (and I may be wrong), there have only been a scant few married men ordained in America. I have heard that many of the Ukrainian Catholic priests in America were ordained as married men in the Ukraine and then were transferred (or came) to America

and then Rome realized its error in VII and called on Eastern Churches to return to their roots.

And I hope that this practice continues. My only worry in this is the perception of what these roots are. Returning to their roots should also mean that they are truly autocephelous so that the pope doesn’t interfere in things such as appointing Bishops, etc.

My personal opinion is that the pope needs to pull back from the authority that has been exerted over the affairs of the Eastern Churches in the past from popes.

 

[KingTheoden]

Keep in mind that just because one has the authority to do something does not mean he would necessarily even think of doing it.

I’m not sure what the source of such concern over any pope proscribing married men becoming priests in Eastern churches, but it does not seem rooted in anything but the perennial ‘Vatican monster under my bed’ mentality.

Peter was given the power to bind and loose. That means we have to be compliant even if it grates us (Many, many clergy and lay people were not exactly thrilled with the ‘riches’ of the 60s and 70s. Similarly, many have distinct opinions on annulment tribunals today particularly in America - but we have to accept the situation despite the difficulty until the proper authority [the successor of St. Peter] issues a teaching that offers better understanding of something).

Conciliarism is heretical and leads to bad things, like the nonsense we see in Austria (or at the USCCB). But wanton tyranny is not at all a good exercise of Peter’s successor’s special ministry.

Vatican II’s documents are hotly debated in other threads so I won’t get into that aside from voicing my strong understanding that the Council was pastoral.

Anyway, I really, really would not worry about a pope forbidding married men in the East from becoming priests if for no other reason than there would appear to me no potential benefit from such a decision.