Married priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomas48 said:
Well the Syro Malabar Catholics traditionally do not have married priests, however I’m curious to why Malankara Catholics are excluded from this decision when this Church does ordain married men.
Click to expand...
Celibacy is the norm in both Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara particular law.
 
It should be noted that for the Syro-Malankara Church, this ‘norm’ only became ‘law’ in 1990. The Syro-Malankara Church had (and still has) the option, but the present Holy Synod chooses to circumvent herself for whatever reason.
 
SyroMalankara said:
It should be noted that for the Syro-Malankara Church, this ‘norm’ only became ‘law’ in 1990. The Syro-Malankara Church had (and still has) the option, but the present Holy Synod chooses to circumvent herself for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
I read that it was the original intention in 1930 of Mar Ivanios that the Syro-Malankara clergy follow the rule of celibacy.
 
5Loaves said:
Vatican Insider

In the US bishops of at least three different ECCs had already ordained married men to the priesthood to serve here.
Click to expand...
I read that some bishops were allowing it and then informing the Congregation for Eastern Churches later, which could be true. But I don’t know if the dates were before December 2013.
 
Vico said:
I read that it was the original intention in 1930 of Mar Ivanios that the Syro-Malankara clergy follow the rule of celibacy.
Click to expand...
So has it been stated… I’m just not sure that this is accurate, nor even relevant.
 
SyroMalankara said:
So has it been stated… I’m just not sure that this is accurate, nor even relevant.
Click to expand...
Regarding this thread topic, the recent decision is based on the existing canon law (CCEO), so it does seem to be consistent with the current Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara particular law.
 
5Loaves said:
Comments from EC Bishops
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/11/18/eastern-catholics-in-the-diaspora-overjoyed-at-vatican-decree/#.VG1Vv01eyH4.facebook
Click to expand...
From the article.

Consultation members had issued a statement in June urging an end to the ban, which was experienced as an injustice among Eastern Catholics. Among the Orthodox, the ban created mistrust toward the Catholic Church and a sense that their tradition would not be respected in the event of full communion between the two churches, he explained.

“It’s really important that this has finally been cleared up. It is one more divisive issue that has been taken away,” said Fr Daley, a theology professor at Notre Dame University in Indiana.

Nothing has been cleared up. Until Rome publicly admits it had no authority to impose the restrictions to begin with and can never have that authority the reason for the distrust has not changed.
 
Seraphim73 said:
From the article.

Consultation members had issued a statement in June urging an end to the ban, which was experienced as an injustice among Eastern Catholics. Among the Orthodox, the ban created mistrust toward the Catholic Church and a sense that their tradition would not be respected in the event of full communion between the two churches, he explained.

“It’s really important that this has finally been cleared up. It is one more divisive issue that has been taken away,” said Fr Daley, a theology professor at Notre Dame University in Indiana.

Nothing has been cleared up. Until Rome publicly admits it had no authority to impose the restrictions to begin with and can never have that authority the reason for the distrust has not changed.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you are not an Orthodox bishop, and you do not speak for ALL Orthodox faithful. I accept the fact that reunification with the Orthodox will most likely not be an “everyone or no one” situation. Some will eventually reunite, others will not. Just like in the past.

The real issue, while I disagree with what transpired back then, was that Eastern Catholics were living in the territories of a Latin Bishop, land under his jurisdiction. This was the first time (on a large scale) that the Church had to deal with disporea. The local (American) bishops thought that married priests in their dioceses would cause confusion and possible scandal. They were already creating “national” personal parishes because the Irish, Germans, Italians, etc. could not play nice together. If there was that much friction between Roman Rite Catholics who were attending Mass in Latin, imagine what kind of issues transpired with Catholics from the other Rites. Right or wrong, the local American bishops appealed their case to their Patriarch (the Pope) who agreed that the Bishops had the right to to impose limitations.

It wasn’t created by the Pope. The Pope simply agreed that the LOCAL Bishops had the power to control the rules in their dioceses. This happened in the past (before the schism) when Byzantine Bishops placed limitations on disporea Latin parishes in the Byzantine Empire.

Now that Eastern Catholics have their own Bishops in America, there is a stronger Catholic Hierarchy for Eastern Catholics, which is more structured. Therefore, in most situations, the Eastern Parishes no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the Latin Bishop.

If anything, the Pope is exercising Papal Authority now by REMOVING the limitation, not when it was put in place.
 
Seraphim73 said:
From the article.

Consultation members had issued a statement in June urging an end to the ban, which was experienced as an injustice among Eastern Catholics. Among the Orthodox, the ban created mistrust toward the Catholic Church and a sense that their tradition would not be respected in the event of full communion between the two churches, he explained.

“It’s really important that this has finally been cleared up. It is one more divisive issue that has been taken away,” said Fr Daley, a theology professor at Notre Dame University in Indiana.

Nothing has been cleared up. Until Rome publicly admits it had no authority to impose the restrictions to begin with and can never have that authority the reason for the distrust has not changed.
Click to expand...
Do you not acknowledge the concept of canonical territory? I thought that was a very important hot button topic in Orthodoxy. If it is the position of Orthodox Christians that Eastern Patriarchs / Synods must have full autonomy within their canonical territory, but that Rome may not have any authority / autonomy within her canonical authority, reunion will not be possible. North America was considered the canonical territory of the Latin Church, and the Latin bishops appealed to their Patriarch in Rome…today, things are different as multiple Churches “sui iuris” have established hierarchies in North America.
 
twf said:
Do you not acknowledge the concept of canonical territory? I thought that was a very important hot button topic in Orthodoxy. If it is the position of Orthodox Christians that Eastern Patriarchs / Synods must have full autonomy within their canonical territory, but that Rome may not have any authority / autonomy within her canonical authority, reunion will not be possible. North America was considered the canonical territory of the Latin Church, and the Latin bishops appealed to their Patriarch in Rome…today, things are different as multiple Churches “sui iuris” have established hierarchies in North America.
Click to expand...
Does the pope have the right to ban ordination of married men in the canonical territory of the Eastern Catholic Churches?
 
Seraphim73 said:
Definitely no? Then that’s a good start.
Click to expand...
Similar question back at you… does the EP have the right to restrict or permit clergy under another’s jurisdiction? Does one bishop have any rights over the territory of others?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top