Married Priests

[The_Geographer]

Try ‘indepth’ thinking before engaging the keyboard.
You sound to me like some Medieval Monk.

MAN! Did you ever step in it.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I too am having difficulty with the fact that some people don’t know that the Catholic Church is made up of many smaller Churches, which are autonomous in the disciplines, laws and liturgies, but have full communion with the Church of Rome. The priests of the Eastern Churches, married and celibate, are just as Catholic as those of the Roman Church. It has been this way for 2,000 years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for that Brother!

Most Ukrainian Catholic clergy and the hierarchy refused to renounce Catholicism even though at the time Stalin took over Western Ukraine in 1946 he allowed priests and the hierarchy amnesty if they would join the “at-the-time” State-sanctioned Russian Orthodox Church. Ukrainian Catholic bishops suffered excruciating tortures at the hands of the Soviet Secret Police to get them to renounce Catholicism. They remained faithful to Rome. See here a list of martyrs ugcc.org.ua/35.0.html?&L=2 and how they were tortured to death. Stalin and the communists liquidated the Church out of existence and passed on its property to the state church. Thakfully, after 50 years in the catacombs the Church has resurrected.

Jharek I believe also has researched those heroic Orthodox clergy who refused to collaborate or listen to the Soviet Regime and the brutal deaths and tortures that befell them as well for the faith.

 

[joandarc2008]

I come from possibly the largest Eastern Catholic Church, the Ukrainian, and I believe one should be very careful in attempting to argue the Eastern Catholic Churches are “not right” on this. The present Pope Benedict and the one before him JP2 and before would find your opinion joandarc not right. When you say it’s (married priests) not right, the Head of Our Church, the Pope, disagrees with you. There is a cannon law for the Eastern Catholic Churches put out by the Vatican. It always helps to learn more of the Catholic and Christian world.

Priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is a DISCIPLINE which can be changed, it is NOT DOGMA. That’s why our’s (Eastern Catholics’) is a discipline different from the Roman but fully acceptable in the historic Ukrainian Catholic Church and in the Vatican. Priestly celibacy is not dogma.

I humbly suggest you misunderstand other churches and religions if you are comparing Eastern Catholic Churches to “sects of Judaism” with respect to views on God or something you were trying to get across. I don’t see the connection and I think you’re a little confused at what you’re trying to say, and my apologies if I have offended you. The Ukrainian Catholic Church is a fully Catholic Church, which the last two popes have vigorously encouraged to go back and edify their traditions. Our Eucharist is just as Catholic as yours, even with a married priest celebrating.

Here is a recent article from the New York Times on a Ukrainian Catholic priest and his family though it may get a bit of the NYT angle: nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/europe/23ukraine.html?hp

The late venerable Pope JP2 in a visit to Ukraine in 2001 in which he spoke in perfect Ukrainian beatified some 27 martyrs of the Catholic Faith from the Ukrainian Catholic Church (one of them may have been a martyred married priest I think) who perished at the hands of the communists.

I also agree with Jharek that the Orthodox in Russia, Ukraine, etc. suffered terribly under Communism, and I appreciate his defense of Eastern Catholicism.

Again, I do not argue from a point of ignorance. My grandfather is a Russian convert to the Roman Catholic Church from the Russian Orthodox. His father was an immigrant who lied about his age to get into this country. While I appreciate the terrible things that have happenned under communism I simply cannot agree with this- it is one of the reasons I choose Roman Catholicism. I do need to agree to disagree here. It is no meant out of disrespect.

 

[KyivAndrew]

While I appreciate the terrible things that have happenned under communism I simply cannot agree with this- it is one of the reasons I choose Roman Catholicism. I do need to agree to disagree here. It is no meant out of disrespect.

O.K. Thanks for the answer. I am just curious. Let’s leave Orthodoxy out. Do you accept that Eastern Catholics who allow married clergy (there is a whole Forum for Eastern Catholicism on CAF where Ukrainian, Ruthenian, etc. Catholics also post) are fully Catholic or are we 2nd class Catholics? I am asking sincerely and appreciate honesty. Do you believe as the Holy Father that we are Catholic too, the Eastern Catholics?

God Bless,

Andrew

 

[JReducation]

Again, I do not argue from a point of ignorance. My grandfather is a Russian convert to the Roman Catholic Church from the Russian Orthodox. His father was an immigrant who lied about his age to get into this country. While I appreciate the terrible things that have happenned under communism I simply cannot agree with this- it is one of the reasons I choose Roman Catholicism. I do need to agree to disagree here. It is no meant out of disrespect.

But Joan, let’s look at this from another angle. The Eastern Catholic Churches (let’s leave out Orthodox) were founded by the Apostls in communion with Peter. These Apostles established a married clergy. Celibacy was only for religious. So a married man could become a priest. He could not become a religious.

We, as Catholics, cannot disagree with the Apostles. These were the Churches that they founded and they had the power to set them up this way. Had Peter said that they could not do it, then we would have something to be concerned about. But Peter was himself married and so were most of the Apostles. They did not leave their wives as some popular legends say. They were more like the father who travels foer a living. They came and went.

Do you see where we Catholics in the Roman Church are wrong to look at Catholics in the other Chruches as being wrong for ordaining married men, since this was given to them by the Apostles themselves? We would be disagreeing with the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Formosus]

“This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.” (Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, 16)

“Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 373)

The discipline of clerical celibacy is just that, a discipline. Eastern disciplines are just as valid and just as holy as Roman disciplines and to say otherwise is to speak not only against the Eastern churches but also against the Most Holy Roman Church which has definitively defended our right to have married clergy.

 

[JReducation]

“This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.” (Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, 16)

“Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 373)

The discipline of clerical celibacy is just that, a discipline. Eastern disciplines are just as valid and just as holy as Roman disciplines and to say otherwise is to speak not only against the Eastern churches but also against the Most Holy Roman Church which has definitively defended our right to have married clergy.

I think that many Roman Catholics confuse the Eastern Churches with the Orthodox. In reality it makes no difference when it comes to this topic, because all have received the priesthood directly from the Apostles. But it is important to remember tha the Eastern Churches are autonomous, but in full communion with Rome. They too make up the Catholic Church.

Many Roman Catholics do not know that the Eastern Church have their own code of Canon Law approved by the Holy Fathers through the ages. There are points that are repeated in both codes, such as everything on the sacraments. But on matters of discipline, liturgy, language, and religious life, they have different canons.

Now that some of us know this, we need to teach it to others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

O.K. Thanks for the answer. I am just curious. Let’s leave Orthodoxy out. Do you accept that Eastern Catholics who allow married clergy (there is a whole Forum for Eastern Catholicism on CAF where Ukrainian, Ruthenian, etc. Catholics also post) are fully Catholic or are we 2nd class Catholics? I am asking sincerely and appreciate honesty. Do you believe as the Holy Father that we are Catholic too, the Eastern Catholics?

God Bless,

Andrew

No I don’t think you are second class citizens and I greatly apologize if I have given that idea. This is my basic point - if clerical celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is to be greatly honored why would we choose to have anything else?

 

[Puddin317]

Just my two cents…but I believe that Priests should never be allowed to marry… well they are married, to the Church. I take great faith and solace in the fact that my priest is married to his bride, the church. It allows me to have a relationship with him that in no way involves any kind of improper relationship with me or anyone else if vows are kept. I wouldn’t feel comfortable talking to my priest about things knowing he had a wife at home waiting to talk about his day. My husband and I share everything and have no secrets…I want my priest to keep my secrets and not have a wife to bounce them off of. I’m not saying that priests are perfect, they’re human, but to me, they are the representation of Christ on earth for me, someone to reach out to, ask for guidance, confess to, ask for help, etc. I know that his single, solitary mission in life is to serve his Bride, and therefore her sheep. I’m quite happy being a sheep. Sounds rudimentary but there is safety and solace in the priest/parishoner relationship knowing that he is completely consumed by his vocation and is not distracted by family life, a wife, children, etc. My husband barely has a moment to think with all of his responsibilities - he couldn’t do all that and tend to a flock.

 

[JReducation]

There are two points that have to be understood.

First, married men have been ordained priests for 2000 years in the Eastern Churches and it has never been a problem for them. The Church is not about to change a tradition that is 2000 years old.

Second, priestly celibacy is preferred for the priest, not for the general population. In fact there is a difference between priestly celibacy and religious celibacy. Religious do not make vows of celibacy. We make vows of chastity, which includes celibacy, but also includes community living and detachment from one’s biological family, which priestly celibacy does not require.

All that being said, the fact that a priest is married does not change the fact that when his absolves or consecrates he speaks in Persona Christi. And no they do not go home and repeat what they have heard to their wives. As any Eastern Catholic priest or any Orthodox priest. The wives also make a commitment to their husband’s ministry, just as our deacon’s wives do.

All we do not speak of priests keep thing vows unless the priest belongs to a religious community. A priest who is a diocesan priest does not make vows. He promises celibacy and he promises obedience to his bishop, but he cannot make a vow, because a vow is a covenant between the individual and a community. These priests do not belong to a community. Also, theologically speaking, priests are not married to the Church. They are sent by the Church to preach, teach, govern, consecrate, baptize and so forth. That is why the ritual is called an ordination. It comes from the word to oder. The bishop shares his priesthood with the perosn that he ordains and order or sends him out to serve the Church. He is not the spouse of the Church, but the servant of the Church. That’s how popes came to be called servant of the servants of God. The ordained are servants, not spouses. We are reminded of this on Holy Thursday at the washing of the feet. It’s a much more beautiful theology than the popular idea of marriage to the Church. Psychologically a person may feel that way. But that’s not how the dogma teaches it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

But then again it is known that the Bible is divinely inspired and we continue to learn more as time goes on - hence the Catechism which begin to explain and create rulings on such things as IVF, birth control (granted they had that back in the day but not in the prevalence), civil divorce with remarriage, and many other things that have needed rulings that were not necessarily thought of back in the days. I am not saying that the Eastern Church is wrong - I misspoke and made a mistake and I greatly I apologize. I guess what I should say is that I prefer the traditions of the Latin Church that give me comfort and understanding. I guess it is a contextual point of view. In my life One is better than the other but not for everyone or overall - does that make sense.

 

[JReducation]

But then again it is known that the Bible is divinely inspired and we continue to learn more as time goes on - hence the Catechism which begin to explain and create rulings on such things as IVF, birth control (granted they had that back in the day but not in the prevalence), civil divorce with remarriage, and many other things that have needed rulings that were not necessarily thought of back in the days. I am not saying that the Eastern Church is wrong - I misspoke and made a mistake and I greatly I apologize. I guess what I should say is that I prefer the traditions of the Latin Church that give me comfort and understanding. I guess it is a contextual point of view. In my life One is better than the other but not for everyone or overall - does that make sense.

The red lettering is mine.

I think now you have hit the nail on the head. The issue is context. The person born into the Roman Church is born into a context that has had celibate clergy for 2000 years. Celibacy was highly practiced in the Roman Church because of the teachings of Paul on the subject and the teachings of Peter on marriage. Peter’s teaching on marriage did not include ministry and Paul’s teaching on celibacy was all about serving God. Many men remained celibate. By about the year 1000, there were few married priests in the Roman Church. That’s the context into which you were born and it feels comfortable. While a married clergy is uncomfortable.

However, the other Apostles did not separate marriage and Holy Orders. When they founded their Churches, they had a very large numbers of married men being ordained in all of their Churches that they founded: Melchite, Ukranian, Greek, Syrian, etc. All of these were founded by Apostles who were in full communion with Peter, but were not in full communion with Paul on the issue of celibacy. However, the Apostles did not need to be in full communion with Paul for two reasons: 1) Paul was not the pope and 2) Paul’s teaching on celibacy was not accepted as command, but as a spiritual discipline. Therefore it has always been optional for everyone… Paul never said that it was a requirement to enter heaven.

Context is important. For this reason the Roman Church has to learn about the contexts of the many Eastern Churches. Because there are still people out there who still refer to the Roman Catholic Church as if there were no other Catholics. I have had this question come up in my own family and had to explain it. But when you understand the two contexts and you appreciate their beauty and their Apostolic origins, you can become a tool for Church unity. My family gets even more confused because they’re Jewish.

Now, with the arrival of the Anglicans the Roman context is going to be rattled for some people until this generation of Anglican Catholic priests dies out and is replaced by a celibate generation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JohnT58]

I find that statement sadly insulting. I was well aware of Eastern Rites well before my 20’s. You have waded into the middle of a discussion, picked up the last statement I made, and assumed something entirely erroneous. Indeed if you had followed the train of thought in the discussion, indeed read my early posts were I referenced other Rites within the Church you may have realised that. The salient point of this discussion is celibacy within the Roman/Latin Rite.

Again if you read my posts I you will find I never made any such assertion.

The real world examples I was refering to, to summarise, were not Eastern Catholic priests,(or indeed Orthodox priests, in case you think I am confusing the two, which I’m not) rather married Anglicans priest being admitted into the Roman Rite. This has created a somewhat two-tier system in the Roman Rite, some allowed to be married, celibacy imposed upon others. I hate to have to repeat myself, but there it is.
I’m not saying celibacy should be imposed upon the other rites of the Church, no more so that I would suggest the rules of other Rites should be imposed upon the Roman Rite.

 

[joandarc2008]

The red lettering is mine.

I think now you have hit the nail on the head. The issue is context. The person born into the Roman Church is born into a context that has had celibate clergy for 2000 years. Celibacy was highly practiced in the Roman Church because of the teachings of Paul on the subject and the teachings of Peter on marriage. Peter’s teaching on marriage did not include ministry and Paul’s teaching on celibacy was all about serving God. Many men remained celibate. By about the year 1000, there were few married priests in the Roman Church. That’s the context into which you were born and it feels comfortable. While a married clergy is uncomfortable.

However, the other Apostles did not separate marriage and Holy Orders. When they founded their Churches, they had a very large numbers of married men being ordained in all of their Churches that they founded: Melchite, Ukranian, Greek, Syrian, etc. All of these were founded by Apostles who were in full communion with Peter, but were not in full communion with Paul on the issue of celibacy. However, the Apostles did not need to be in full communion with Paul for two reasons: 1) Paul was not the pope and 2) Paul’s teaching on celibacy was not accepted as command, but as a spiritual discipline. Therefore it has always been optional for everyone… Paul never said that it was a requirement to enter heaven.

Context is important. For this reason the Roman Church has to learn about the contexts of the many Eastern Churches. Because there are still people out there who still refer to the Roman Catholic Church as if there were no other Catholics. I have had this question come up in my own family and had to explain it. But when you understand the two contexts and you appreciate their beauty and their Apostolic origins, you can become a tool for Church unity. My family gets even more confused because they’re Jewish.

Now, with the arrival of the Anglicans the Roman context is going to be rattled for some people until this generation of Anglican Catholic priests dies out and is replaced by a celibate generation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I put some of your words in red as well - I still haven’t figured out the whole partial quote thing that lets you properly quote the right person- I don’t want to start a whole thread on this but I think there are bigger problems with unity wiht the Anglican Church as a whole. Dont’ get me wrong I had a very good friend who was an Anglican Priest whom I respected very much - that being said I know there are large elements in the Anglican Church that do not believe as we believe about issues such as birth control, divorce, anullment, and homosexuality.

Now I have one other question - besides the initial vow of celibacy/chastity (I don’t know enough to split that hair) that a diocesan priest makes in the RC- what would keep him from saying OK, I took all my sacraments in the RC but now I want to marry, renouncing his vow and swithing to the EC and requesting ordination as he is now married prior to ordination? Just a stupid quesiton - and yes I am splitting hairs and just wondering - not picking.

 

[curlycool89]

Now I have one other question - besides the initial vow of celibacy/chastity (I don’t know enough to split that hair) that a diocesan priest makes in the RC- what would keep him from saying OK, I took all my sacraments in the RC but now I want to marry, renouncing his vow and swithing to the EC and requesting ordination as he is now married prior to ordination? Just a stupid quesiton - and yes I am splitting hairs and just wondering - not picking.

I don’t think one is allowed to transfer between the different Catholic Churches that easily. I’m sure the ECs would prefer people who have been ECs for quite a while to make up their clergy, just as we in the Roman Catholic Church would prefer someone who is a Roman Catholic to be our priests (not including the special case for bi-ritual priests. I think one example is the Redemptorists, who seem to be involved in both the Roman and Ukrainian Catholic Churches). I think in that case the ECs would refuse to ordain a person who just seems to be using them to get around the Roman Catholic discipline of celibacy.

 

[joandarc2008]

I don’t think one is allowed to transfer between the different Catholic Churches that easily. I’m sure the ECs would prefer people who have been ECs for quite a while to make up their clergy, just as we in the Roman Catholic Church would prefer someone who is a Roman Catholic to be our priests (not including the special case for bi-ritual priests. I think one example is the Redemptorists, who seem to be involved in both the Roman and Ukrainian Catholic Churches). I think in that case the ECs would refuse to ordain a person who just seems to be using them to get around the Roman Catholic discipline of celibacy.

I could see this - and believe me I am not trying to malign priests by saying that they would all want to get around the rules. However, some are more human-like than Christ-like just like the rest of us and we just had two major scandals in our archdiocese in the last two years that made the news. One priest that got caught on the beach with his lover, left the Church to marry her, and was ordained in the Episcopal Church. The other priest who was actually being “rehabbed” at the Church that I was married at (he had no public priestly duties) who impregnated a stripper, was served with a restraining order, and is now suing said stripper for custody over moral character.

The archdiocese paid a settlement out on the second one. This is why I may come off as a bit gun-shy about married priests. These were guys that were supposed to be celibate. However, as I said before they are also human and we are all sinners. It is just a shame because I think right now the Church *in all forms *needs less scandal not more potential for it.

 

[JReducation]

I put some of your words in red as well - I still haven’t figured out the whole partial quote thing that lets you properly quote the right person- I don’t want to start a whole thread on this but I think there are bigger problems with unity wiht the Anglican Church as a whole. Dont’ get me wrong I had a very good friend who was an Anglican Priest whom I respected very much - that being said I know there are large elements in the Anglican Church that do not believe as we believe about issues such as birth control, divorce, anullment, and homosexuality.

Now I have one other question - besides the initial vow of celibacy/chastity (I don’t know enough to split that hair) that a diocesan priest makes in the RC- what would keep him from saying OK, I took all my sacraments in the RC but now I want to marry, renouncing his vow and swithing to the EC and requesting ordination as he is now married prior to ordination? Just a stupid quesiton - and yes I am splitting hairs and just wondering - not picking.

To be ordained in the Eastern Catholic Churches, you must have roots in Eastern Catholicism. This means that you may have been born into Eastern Catholicism or one of your anscestors in direct lineage: parent or grandparent. It has happened that men who have been Roman Catholics and are married have been orained in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but they have roots in that culture. Eastern Catholicism is not only a collection of apostolic traditions, but they are also very specific ethnic groups. Though that is breaking down with inter-ethnic marriages.

As far as the Anglicans are concerned, don’t forget, we are not uniting the two communities. The Anglicans will remain Anglicans and Catholics will remain Catholics. What we have offered is to receive into the Catholic Church those Anglicans who want communion with the Catholic Church. Obviously, if they want communion with the Catholic Church, they must may a public profession of faith declaring that they believe everything that the Church teaches. It’s not a problem at all. Look at Fr. George Rutler in NYC. He’s on EWTN. He’s one of the most famous Anglican converts in the USA.

The other thing that we offered the Anglicans is that they may continue to celebrate the mass using their books, hymns, prayers and form. We have two Anglican Catholic parishes in our diocese and no one even notices. You can’t tell the difference until the mass begins. It’s like the EF, but in English. That’s the best way that I can explain it. It has some elements of the OF too. But it’s more Tridentine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

To be ordained in the Eastern Catholic Churches, you must have roots in Eastern Catholicism. This means that you may have been born into Eastern Catholicism or one of your anscestors in direct lineage: parent or grandparent. It has happened that men who have been Roman Catholics and are married have been orained in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but they have roots in that culture. Eastern Catholicism is not only a collection of apostolic traditions, but they are also very specific ethnic groups. Though that is breaking down with inter-ethnic marriages.

As far as the Anglicans are concerned, don’t forget, we are not uniting the two communities. The Anglicans will remain Anglicans and Catholics will remain Catholics. What we have offered is to receive into the Catholic Church those Anglicans who want communion with the Catholic Church. Obviously, if they want communion with the Catholic Church, they must may a public profession of faith declaring that they believe everything that the Church teaches. It’s not a problem at all. Look at Fr. George Rutler in NYC. He’s on EWTN. He’s one of the most famous Anglican converts in the USA.

The other thing that we offered the Anglicans is that they may continue to celebrate the mass using their books, hymns, prayers and form. We have two Anglican Catholic parishes in our diocese and no one even notices. You can’t tell the difference until the mass begins. It’s like the EF, but in English. That’s the best way that I can explain it. It has some elements of the OF too. But it’s more Tridentine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother I am relieved to read this. I have read so much garbage about uniting and many seem to use the words uniting, bring into communion with, and accept interchangeably which has confused me on this issue.

As far as the EC- now the difference makes sense. Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

Brother I am relieved to read this. I have read so much garbage about uniting and many seem to use the words uniting, bring into communion with, and accept interchangeably which has confused me on this issue.

As far as the EC- now the difference makes sense. Thanks.

UNITING!!! Good grief no. There are several major obstacles for a union between Catholicism and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and any of the Catholic Churches.

The Queen must surrender her title as the head of the Church in England.

They ordain women

They ordain active homosexuals and lesbians

They approve of contraception

Some bishops approve of abortion.

The approve divorce and remarriage, except for the monarchy. Even that can be excempt.

They believe that faith evolves with culture, while Catholics believe that faith has to be applied to culture and that we can use culture to teach faith, but we cannot change the faith.

Maybe what people are confusing is the idea that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is being received into the Catholic Church without having to change their customs and liturgy. In many respects they will look like Anglicans and are often being referred to as Anglican Catholics. Although they look like Anglicans when you go to their mass, it is very much a valid Catholic mass as long as the priest has been received into the Church and at least conditionally ordained.

There are cases where many TAC priests believe that they were ordained by valid bishops. Just in case the Catholic bishops will ordain them again and say “If you’re not ordained, . . . etc” Many of the Traditional Anglicans were frustrated with their bishops and went looking for valid bishops to ordain them. There were a few bishops who did ordain them. These were all bishops who had broken communion with the either the Roman Church, an Eastern Church or even an Orthodox Church. Even though they break communion and are excommunicated, they can still ordain, look at the SSPX. All those priests are validly ordained, even though the bishops were excommunicated. The difference is that the SSPX bishops were not known for being rogue bishops. These bishops who did the ordaining of the Anglicans were rogue bishops. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the SSPX bishops would ordain an Anglican.

So, if an Anglican priest has been ordained by a rogue bishop, he need not be ordained again. He simply makes a profession of faith. If it is not clear whether the ordination is valid, then he is ordained conditionally.

Marriage is not an impediment for them, because they were not born into the Roman Church. The canons did not apply to them. Canon law only applies to Roman Catholics. Since they were not Roman Catholics when they were ordained, they did not have an impediment to ordination for either the diaconate or the priesthood. They cannot enter the Catholic Church as bishops, if they are married. That’s the only restriction. Because all the Apostolic Churches require that bishops be celibate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

UNITING!!! Good grief no. There are several major obstacles for a union between Catholicism and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and any of the Catholic Churches.

The Queen must surrender her title as the head of the Church in England.

They ordain women

They ordain active homosexuals and lesbians

They approve of contraception

Some bishops approve of abortion.

The approve divorce and remarriage, except for the monarchy. Even that can be excempt.

They believe that faith evolves with culture, while Catholics believe that faith has to be applied to culture and that we can use culture to teach faith, but we cannot change the faith.

Maybe what people are confusing is the idea that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is being received into the Catholic Church without having to change their customs and liturgy. In many respects they will look like Anglicans and are often being referred to as Anglican Catholics. Although they look like Anglicans when you go to their mass, it is very much a valid Catholic mass as long as the priest has been received into the Church and at least conditionally ordained.

There are cases where many TAC priests believe that they were ordained by valid bishops. Just in case the Catholic bishops will ordain them again and say “If you’re not ordained, . . . etc” Many of the Traditional Anglicans were frustrated with their bishops and went looking for valid bishops to ordain them. There were a few bishops who did ordain them. These were all bishops who had broken communion with the either the Roman Church, an Eastern Church or even an Orthodox Church. Even though they break communion and are excommunicated, they can still ordain, look at the SSPX. All those priests are validly ordained, even though the bishops were excommunicated. The difference is that the SSPX bishops were not known for being rogue bishops. These bishops who did the ordaining of the Anglicans were rogue bishops. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the SSPX bishops would ordain an Anglican.

So, if an Anglican priest has been ordained by a rogue bishop, he need not be ordained again. He simply makes a profession of faith. If it is not clear whether the ordination is valid, then he is ordained conditionally.

Marriage is not an impediment for them, because they were not born into the Roman Church. The canons did not apply to them. Canon law only applies to Roman Catholics. Since they were not Roman Catholics when they were ordained, they did not have an impediment to ordination for either the diaconate or the priesthood. They cannot enter the Catholic Church as bishops, if they are married. That’s the only restriction. Because all the Apostolic Churches require that bishops be celibate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

thank you - you just pointed out all of the problems I have with that particular Church. I was just being nice and not throwing it out. Uggh.