Married Ruthenian Catholic priests in America?

[babochka]

At a point where there were two Ruthenian Bishops in the World, Rome sentenced one to time in a monastery… and then reassigned him as the Roman Rite Auxiliary Archbishop of Chicago…

So it’s very much not beyond plausibility.

If you’re referring to Bishop Elko, wasn’t that Cincinatti?

 

[malphono]

CDF was never enforced upon the Ukrainian Church. The reason why is that it was a Canadian Metropolia.

There are good reasons why Rome tries to avoid boundaries across national lines when practical.

Maybe but I’m not so sure about that. I’ve discussed “cum data fuerit” with several Canon Lawyers, and invariably the interpretation is that the stupid document applies to all Churches, Eastern & Oriental alike, in the diaspora.

IIRC, there **was **some flack from Rome in the Canadian UGCC case. And there certainly was flack from Rome in the case of the Melkites a few years back. The one way I can think of to circumvent it is to have the candidate ordained “in the homeland” and then reassigned to his home diocese in the diaspora. But until such time as “cum data fuerit” is formally renounced, or at least formally ignored (thereby setting precedent) by Rome we are, unfortunately, stuck with it.

 

[5Loaves]

Maybe but I’m not so sure about that. I’ve discussed “cum data fuerit” with several Canon Lawyers, and invariably the interpretation is that the stupid document applies to all Churches, Eastern & Oriental alike, in the diaspora.

IIRC, there **was **some flack from Rome in the Canadian UGCC case. And there certainly was flack from Rome in the case of the Melkites a few years back. The one way I can think of to circumvent it is to have the candidate ordained “in the homeland” and then reassigned to his home diocese in the diaspora. But until such time as “cum data fuerit” is formally renounced, or at least formally ignored (thereby setting precedent) by Rome we are, unfortunately, stuck with it.

Now that married men are being ordianed to the priesthood on a regular, and seemingly frequent, basis in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, God grant them many years!, there can be NO justification for that cum data fuerit. The fact the Personal Ordinariate now has more married priests than we do in the US is what “creates scandal”!

 

[malphono]

Now that married men are being ordianed to the priesthood on a regular, and seemingly frequent, basis in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, God grant them many years!, there can be NO justification for that cum data fuerit. The fact the Personal Ordinariate now has more married priests than we do in the US is what “creates scandal”!

Agreed, (and the last part in spades) but I wonder what will happen when the “converts” are exhausted? What I mean is when a native-born AU man is involved.

 

[5Loaves]

Agreed, (and the last part in spades) but** I wonder what will happen **when the “converts” are exhausted? What I mean is when a native-born AU man is involved.

Outrage, if the married men aren’t still allowed ordination.

Our bishops need to have a united stand and address Francis, Bishop of Rome, as he prefers to be called. We all hoped they would come forward after that offending statement by Cardinal Sandri in his homily to the EC Synod a year ago.

 

[twf]

Now that married men are being ordianed to the priesthood on a regular, and seemingly frequent, basis in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, God grant them many years!, there can be NO justification for that cum data fuerit. The fact the Personal Ordinariate now has more married priests than we do in the US is what “creates scandal”!

The Canadian bishops, as far as I know, take no issue with the ordination of married men. Other conferences, such as the Italians, certainly do… so not all of this can be levied at Rome. The feelings of the local Latin bishops is going to continue to play a major role country by country. There is, after all, no personal ordinariate in Italy…

 

[malphono]

The Canadian bishops, as far as I know, take no issue with the ordination of married men. Other conferences, such as the Italians, certainly do… so not all of this can be levied at Rome. The feelings of the local Latin bishops is going to continue to play a major role country by country. There is, after all, no personal ordinariate in Italy…

Whether the Canadian bishops currently take no issue doesn’t seem to me to be really the point. AFAIK (and I could be wrong – shame Alex is no longer posting on this forum to correct me if I am), married clergy weren’t common in the UGCC in Canada either. The point being that our friendly “cum data fuerit” is interpreted to include all of the diaspora for all Churches that permit married priests in their home territories. The case of the Romanians in Italy is a little odd, but insofar as it is considered even semi-diasporal, the Italian bishops clearly choose to thwart Eastern/Oriental tradition, same as did the US bishops.

And whether or not there is a local jurisdiction of any particular Church in a particular diasporal location doesn’t really seem to matter. That very same “cum data fuerit” was born out of the Bishop Ireland affair long before the establishment of even an Exarchate in the US.

That said, I’m tossing my dime in with laying the bulk of the responsibility at Rome’s door. Even if a group of local bishops decides to play the (highly overused) “scandal card” it is Rome that ultimately accepts or rejects the idea.

 

[twf]

Whether the Canadian bishops currently take no issue doesn’t seem to me to be really the point. AFAIK (and I could be wrong – shame Alex is no longer posting on this forum to correct me if I am), married clergy weren’t common in the UGCC in Canada either. The point being that our friendly “cum data fuerit” is interpreted to include all of the diaspora for all Churches that permit married priests in their home territories. The case of the Romanians in Italy is a little odd, but insofar as it is considered even semi-diasporal, the Italian bishops clearly choose to thwart Eastern/Oriental tradition, same as did the US bishops.

And whether or not there is a local jurisdiction of any particular Church in a particular diasporal location doesn’t really seem to matter. That very same “cum data fuerit” was born out of the Bishop Ireland affair long before the establishment of even an Exarchate in the US.

That said, I’m tossing my dime in with laying the bulk of the responsibility at Rome’s door. Even if a group of local bishops decides to play the (highly overused) “scandal card” it is Rome that ultimately accepts or rejects the idea.

You’re right that Rome has the ultimate say…but I get the feeling that recent popes are hesitant to step on the bishops’ toes…post-Vatican II collegiality and all that. If all the bishops of a nation are strongly opposed to married clergy, I doubt Rome will do anything about it.

 

[malphono]

You’re right that Rome has the ultimate say…but I get the feeling that recent popes are hesitant to step on the bishops’ toes…post-Vatican II collegiality and all that. If all the bishops of a nation are strongly opposed to married clergy, I doubt Rome will do anything about it.

It’s doubtful to me that it’s ever been the case that all bishops of a given country have ever been opposed. I’d even venture a guess and say that the results of the “Bishop Ireland affair” weren’t exactly unanimous.

But the post-conciliar concept of “collegiality” here doesn’t really hold water either. Doesn’t Rome (formally) insist on the East & Orient regaining their own traditions? The narrow view of a bunch of Latin bishops apparently trumps that. You’re right that Rome won’t do anything about it, but her inaction would seem to be for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Aramis]

But the reason he was reassigned had nothing to do with ordaining married men to the Holy Priesthood.

And everthing to do with being overtly disobedient to Rome’s guidance of the era…

The 20th Century popes have all instructed to delatinize… yet he continued to latinize the Ruthenian Church.

One of two was disobedient, and the people complained. He was removed.

If 4 of the 7 were disobedient in an overt way that caused the people to complain, I have no doubt Rome would remove all 4.

 

[bpgeorgemichael]

Currently the Byzantine Metropolitan See (Pittsburgh) is vacant.

Sorry but does Archbishop Skurla know that his see is vacant? I seem to remember seeing him receive the Omophor from the pope on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. And when I checked on the website, he is still listed as the archbishop.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Currently the Byzantine Metropolitan See (Pittsburgh) is vacant.

Sorry but does Archbishop Skurla know that his see is vacant? I seem to remember seeing him receive the Omophor from the pope on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. And when I checked on the website, he is still listed as the archbishop.

Haha, that post was made when his see WAS vacant. He was the bishop of Passaic in 2011.