Non-latin rite and married priests

[1234]

Why can’t one join a non-latin rite in communion with Rome, then enter a seminary for same and end up being a married priest?

or…an Episcopalian who wants to convert, become an RC priest AND be married, become an Episcopalian priest, marry, and THEN convert and become a married porfer-Anglican priest?

but especially the first scenario. Anyone thought about that?

 

[bilop]

Why can’t one join a non-latin rite in communion with Rome, then enter a seminary for same and end up being a married priest?

but especially the first scenario. Anyone thought about that?

It could happen if a man sincerely wished to change rites, then got married or was married, and later felt a calling to the priesthood.

However, this man would be scrutinized very closely to assure that his change of rites was no just a dodge to become a priest.

God Bless

 

[Harpazo]

I believe at the moment, in the US married clergy are not allowed in any of the Eastern Churches. This is only in the US because in the late 1800s and early 1900s Roman-Rite Bishops were upset about married clergy in the Eastern Rites. So they petitioned Rome, and Rome ruled that Eastern Catholic clergy in America had to be celibate.

But, married Eastern Catholic clergy from outside the US are free to serve in parishes. Weird, I know. I can see were celibate Eastern Church clergy would make sense, seeing as many Eastern Churches don’t have religious orders, at least to my knowledge, and that’s where Bishops are chosen from (being the celibate clergy).

If anyone has anything to add, feel free.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe at the moment, in the US married clergy are not allowed in any of the Eastern Churches. This is only in the US because in the late 1800s and early 1900s Roman-Rite Bishops were upset about married clergy in the Eastern Rites. So they petitioned Rome, and Rome ruled that Eastern Catholic clergy in America had to be celibate.

But, married Eastern Catholic clergy from outside the US are free to serve in parishes. Weird, I know. I can see were celibate Eastern Church clergy would make sense, seeing as many Eastern Churches don’t have religious orders, at least to my knowledge, and that’s where Bishops are chosen from (being the celibate clergy).

If anyone has anything to add, feel free.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

Andrew,
This used to be the case but was changed sometime ago in the law yet the Churches did not take to the practice until recently.

The Ukrainians and Melkites have ordained married men to the priesthood in the US over the past number of years and the Ruthenians have done so very recently. There are also a number of married seminarians in the seminary right now for the Ruthenians.

But as said, changing rites in order to “beat” the disciple of celibate clergy in the Latin Church is not the right thing to do. It is not a valid reason to change rites. Anyone who changed rites would not even be accepted into formation for the priesthood until he lived for at least 5 years in the new church and then they would look at it closely before moving on.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Andrew,
This used to be the case but was changed sometime ago in the law yet the Churches did not take to the practice until recently.

The Ukrainians and Melkites have ordained married men to the priesthood in the US over the past number of years and the Ruthenians have done so very recently. There are also a number of married seminarians in the seminary right now for the Ruthenians.

But as said, changing rites in order to “beat” the disciple of celibate clergy in the Latin Church is not the right thing to do. It is not a valid reason to change rites. Anyone who changed rites would not even be accepted into formation for the priesthood until he lived for at least 5 years in the new church and then they would look at it closely before moving on.

I’m going to disagree with you here. I think that there is no problem with any married man leaving one rite for another if he is feeling God’s call to the priest hood. He should willing wait and do the years of waiting prescribed by the rite the man is seeking to become a priest in. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong in changing from one rite to another as long as it’s in communion with Rome.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Sorry, but I have to agree with Brother David: joinging an Eastern Rite only to rejoin the Roman Rite and be married is, in my opinion, dishonest.

Eastern Priests ordained to Eastern Rites are passionate about their Rite, and usually stay with it. It is permissible to switch rites if one has a sincere change of heart, but to do so simply on a technicality is an insult to all those Eastern Clerics who love and serve their rite. It is also an insult to the Roman Rite to leave and come back just for a technicality.

Now, there may be some people who validly change from West to East, marry, get ordained, and go back West, but this would be extremely rare. Also, I think that this priest would still need permission from Rome, and could very well be denied permission to go back to the Roman Rite. In fact, looking at the record (switch, switch back) it would likely be denied.

The simple truth is that a Roman Rite man who doesn’t want to be celibate, and would go to such lengths to avoid it, has made his vocation strikingly clear: he isn’t called to the priesthood. A Latin Rite man for whom Holy Orders takes a back seat to anything–marriage included–shouldn’t be ordained. He would be a mediocre priest, because he wouldn’t be willing to make sacrifices.

The situation is different among Eastern Priests, and simply can’t be compared. To approach Eastern priestly life with a Roman attitude, or the intention of becoming Latin again, simply wouldn’t work.

Mat.

P.S. I’m applying to the seminary (Latin Rite) as soon as I’m done with college, and celibacy is at the bottom of my list of concerns. Celibacy is a gift, not a nuisance to be avoided.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I’m going to disagree with you here. I think that there is no problem with any married man leaving one rite for another if he is feeling God’s call to the priest hood. He should willing wait and do the years of waiting prescribed by the rite the man is seeking to become a priest in. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong in changing from one rite to another as long as it’s in communion with Rome.

This isn’t a status symbol or a a state to seek for its own end…

There is nothing wrong with joining any of the Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.

If you feel the call to be married and to be a priest, you will have to sort how that will work out.

But just going to the Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Melkites, etc so you can be a priest and be married isn’t going to cut it. You have to be called to priestly service TO those communities.

Our bishops know the drill already. Guys who call them up trying to satisfy their own whims and find the “married priest niche” are not well recieved. If you know us, join us and want to serve us that is one thing. We aren’t here to accomadate some “let’s get around celibacy” game.

I can also tell anyone and everyone here that a Roman who transfers, marries, and gets ordained in the East is not going to have “going home to Rome” as an option. For the most part, Byzantine priests aren’t granted bi-ritual faculties for the Roman rite as often as the reverse. I can tell you right now, a married ex-Roman is going to have a tougher time getting them otherwise, and his Eastern bishop is going to want to know what is up with that.

 

[RedSoxFan]

This isn’t a status symbol or a a state to seek for its own end…

There is nothing wrong with joining any of the Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.

If you feel the call to be married and to be a priest, you will have to sort how that will work out.

But just going to the Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Melkites, etc so you can be a priest and be married isn’t going to cut it. You have to be called to priestly service TO those communities.

Our bishops know the drill already. Guys who call them up trying to satisfy their own whims and find the “married priest niche” are not well recieved. If you know us, join us and want to serve us that is one thing. We aren’t here to accomadate some “let’s get around celibacy” game.

I can also tell anyone and everyone here that a Roman who transfers, marries, and gets ordained in the East is not going to have “going home to Rome” as an option. For the most part, Byzantine priests aren’t granted bi-ritual faculties for the Roman rite as often as the reverse. I can tell you right now, a married ex-Roman is going to have a tougher time getting them otherwise, and his Eastern bishop is going to want to know what is up with that.

Well we both agree that anyone who would possibly do this as a status symbol isn’t exactly doing this as a way of answering God’s call. And I would also expect to stay in the rite I would have joined in order to become a priest primarily because I view all as being equal and it would be to that particular rite I would have an obligation to serve. I would not try to go back to the Latin rite once ordained.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Well we both agree that anyone who would possibly do this as a status symbol isn’t exactly doing this as a way of answering God’s call. And I would also expect to stay in the rite I would have joined in order to become a priest primarily because I view all as being equal and it would be to that particular rite I would have an obligation to serve. I would not try to go back to the Latin rite once ordained.

I think I get your drift, RedSoxFan, and I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same page.

I’d like to comment on the Episcopalian thing: if a person is willing to formally enter into heresy for a time just to avoid celibacy would never recieve the Pastoral privilege. More seriously, however, he really needs to examine his conscience: is plunging into schism an appropriate action for someone called to spread and explain the laws of the Church, and preach on the virtue of obedience? This is the kind of attitude that produces people like Archbishop Lefevbre.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think I get your drift, RedSoxFan, and I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same page.

I’d like to comment on the Episcopalian thing: if a person is willing to formally enter into heresy for a time just to avoid celibacy would never recieve the Pastoral privilege. More seriously, however, he really needs to examine his conscience: is plunging into schism an appropriate action for someone called to spread and explain the laws of the Church, and preach on the virtue of obedience? This is the kind of attitude that produces people like Archbishop Lefevbre.

Apostacy from the Catholic Church precludes possibility of the Pastoral Provision.

Rev. (Mathew?) Pinto formerly of the Episcopal Church and than the Charismatic Episcopal Church, having been baptized and confirmed Catholic was not eligable for the PP when he returned to the Catholic Church. Today he works with Father Pavone… And of course would still be eligible for ordination as a deacon.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Glad to see it stated on this site that if one leaves the church in a round about way of trying to get back into the church as a married priest that it would not be allowed.

I have read posts earlier that people thought they had found a loop hole in which to sneek by.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Glad to see it stated on this site that if one leaves the church in a round about way of trying to get back into the church as a married priest that it would not be allowed.

I have read posts earlier that people thought they had found a loop hole in which to sneek by.

That is a huge no-no. The only possible exceptions I have ever heard of were with Eastern Catholics that may have gone, for a time, to the Orthodox counterpart of their Eastern Catholic Church. Exceptions get made for those fellows sometimes… BUT (and this is important) I have only seen it done for a few ethnic “lifers” were were raised in an ECC, went Orthodox, and came back. I have NEVER seen it done for an adult Roman who goes Eastern Catholic, than goes Orthodox, than tries to become Eastern Catholic…

The one possible exception I can think of to that is a man who was raised RC, converted to EO at 20, was a priest with them for 20 years, and then came home to an Eastern Catholic Church. After a 20 year career of priestly service, it became obvious that it wasn’t a long term plan to dodge the system or find a loophole…

Again though, leaving the Catholic Church to sneak back in as a married priest NEVER works.

 

[RedSoxFan]

So if a Roman rite Catholic decided to go Maronite or Melkite, Ukrainian, or whatever the case may be, if he can convince the local patriarch of his sincerity then he might begin the process of becoming a priest in an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church?

Sorry if this sounds like I’m beating a dead horse, just making sure I got this correct. Thanks!

 

[Formosus]

I would like to point out, one can only change their Ritual Autonomous Church once. So the idea of going EC to be a married priest, then going back to Roman, is canonically impossible unless you ment bi ritual faculties. Either way , its dishonest and I would argue that it would be a mortal sin if the other two conditions for mortal sin were met.

 

[bilop]

So if a Roman rite Catholic decided to go Maronite or Melkite, Ukrainian, or whatever the case may be, if he can convince the local patriarch of his sincerity then he might begin the process of becoming a priest in an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church?

Sorry if this sounds like I’m beating a dead horse, just making sure I got this correct. Thanks!

It is technically possible. He would have to be in his new Eastern Church for at least 5 years before beginning the discernment process.

However, he would be scrutinized very closely to make sure it wasn’t a switch of convenience.

For example, if he had been discerning the priesthood or a seminarian in the Latin Church, and dropped out to marry, I am sure he would never be allowed to pursue the priesthood in the Eastern Churches.

On the other hand, if a man joined the Ukrainian Church at age 20, married at 30, and at age 40 felt a calling to the Priesthood, he might be allowed to pursue it.

 

[justme]

I would like to point out, one can only change their Ritual Autonomous Church once. So the idea of going EC to be a married priest, then going back to Roman, is canonically impossible unless you ment bi ritual faculties. Either way , its dishonest and I would argue that it would be a mortal sin if the other two conditions for mortal sin were met.

Actually this is no longer the case, as least as spelt out in Canon Law. It was in the old Canon Law but the current Code of Canon Law does not have this in it.

 

[johnnydigit]

interesting topic.

For example, if he had been discerning the priesthood or a seminarian in the Latin Church, and dropped out to marry, I am sure he would never be allowed to pursue the priesthood in the Eastern Churches.

never? this scenario is actually what came into my mind and sounds more reasonable than the original post…

a cradle Roman Catholic. discerning for some time (is this even relevant? even if a seminarian?). is attracted to the eastern rites mainly because

1. they are more traditional
2. allow married priests.
   he converts over. marries. becomes a priest. however unlike the OP, he doesn’t want to return to the latin rite.

what are the moral complications to this? is it just a matter of loyalty? is it a blasphemy?

what are the moral complications of wanting to go to the Eastern Orthodox? since they are Apostolic and have the valid Eucharist and Sacraments, what is the severity of this and is it a “betrayal”?
EDIT—“Orthodox theology does deny tenents of the Catholic faith that have been defined in council or ex cathedra by the Pope.”-- i guess this answers it.

 

[Formosus]

There is a moral dilemma in this, in that Eastern Catholic Churches generally do not accept your change of Church if they realize you are doing it just to become a married priest. Thus you would have to lie to the Bishop of the Church you want to join, and to the Bishop of the Latin diocese you are transfering from. Lying to the successors of the Apostles is not a very good thing to do, to say the least.

 

[1234]

interesting topic.

never? this scenario is actually what came into my mind and sounds more reasonable than the original post…

a cradle Roman Catholic. discerning for some time (is this even relevant? even if a seminarian?). is attracted to the eastern rites mainly because

1. they are more traditional
2. allow married priests.
   he converts over. marries. becomes a priest. however unlike the OP, he doesn’t want to return to the latin rite.

what are the moral complications to this? is it just a matter of loyalty? is it a blasphemy?

what are the moral complications of wanting to go to the Eastern Orthodox? since they are Apostolic and have the valid Eucharist and Sacraments, what is the severity of this and is it a “betrayal”?
EDIT—“Orthodox theology does deny tenents of the Catholic faith that have been defined in council or ex cathedra by the Pope.”-- i guess this answers it.

but re the eastern rite churches, those in communion with Rome:

NO one needs to lie. Maybe a young single man, a latin-rite member, is thinking about priesthood. He starts attending an eastern rite church, to find out what they are all about. Maybe there are family connections. He feels happy and comfortable there. He talks to the happy, comfortable, MARRIED priest. So, he starts to attend eastern rite. He learns the language, the rituals. Eventually he enters the seminary. He marries and is ordained, in whichever order is possible. He becomes another happy, married priest in the eastern rite.

Is this happening? What are the stats for eastern rite seminarians? Anybody know?

 

[johnnydigit]

There is a moral dilemma in this, in that Eastern Catholic Churches generally do not accept your change of Church if they realize you are doing it just to become a married priest. Thus you would have to lie to the Bishop of the Church you want to join, and to the Bishop of the Latin diocese you are transfering from. Lying to the successors of the Apostles is not a very good thing to do, to say the least.

i can see the error in it being the sole reason, but what if it is just a possible consideration and you are still discerning married or religious life? everything else about it is attractive and weighs in just as much if not more, and the married aspect is just another bonus if i do choose that path in the future?