Pressure from Latin Bishops to Not Ordain Married Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter shlomo3amrooh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well the wording could at least have been more objective.
Originally Posted by twf View Post
The Latin Church in North America, the UK, and Australia ordains married men to the priesthood - via the Anglican Ordinariates. That’s the irony.
The Church does NOT ordain married men to the priesthood, it allows married clergy to become priests of their communities that converted to Chatolicism.

This is not a permanent dispensation as posted before new entrants into the Anglican priesthood will need to be celibate. At least in the Ordinariate of the US as far as I understand.

 
Well the wording could at least have been more objective.

The Church does NOT ordain married men to the priesthood, it allows married clergy to become priests of their communities that converted to Chatolicism.
According to the so-called “Pastoral Provision” and Anglicanorum Coetibus, ministers being received, married or otherwise, may be accepted as candidates for ordination.
VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.
That, of course, means that married men are indeed ordained to the priesthood.
This is not a permanent dispensation as posted before new entrants into the Anglican priesthood will need to be celibate. At least in the Ordinariate of the US as far as I understand.
That’s not necessarily the case. While it’s true that there is no “standing dispensation” for it, the Ordinaries may petition on an ad-hoc basis.
VI. § 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.
 
Bishop Gerald, of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix, recently ordained two married men to the priesthood, without fanfare. The sky has not yet fallen.
 
Bishop Gerald, of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix, recently ordained two married men to the priesthood, without fanfare. The sky has not yet fallen.
I suppose it depends on how the Roman winds are blowing on any given day. A few years back, I recall that the Melkite Eparch also did such an ordination (I don’t know if there was much fanfare about it) and was severely reprimanded by Rome. 🤷
 
Well the wording could at least have been more objective.

The Church does NOT ordain married men to the priesthood, it allows married clergy to become priests of their communities that converted to Catholicism.
Not true. We are talking about married men being [re-]ordained. Sometimes it’s conditional, sometimes it isn’t.

Anyways, that’s entirely beside the point.

P.S. Of course, a priest would not be re-ordained if he converted to Catholicism from the PNCC rather than from Anglicanism. (I can’t think of any cases of that happening.)
 
In all these cases, I want to reiterate one thing.
Consider the words spoken by British prime minister, David Cameroon. He said that Chrisitanity is always safe in Britain and it has no threat there in the future. He was pointing out the activities and laws imposed by French government against the Muslims in France. There was a ban of burkha in france. Frnce as a catholic nation fears spread of Islam there.
What is the reason for all these?
In France, as a catholic nation has celibate priests and bishops. But in Britain, church of England has married priests and bishops. In any catholic society, what I have seen is there is strong discontent against priests and bishops even though they are celibate and do a great service to society.
But in Britain, whatever be the religion, caste society, people are free to practice anything. For 100s of years, British society is stable. But in the catholic church, a lot of things are hidden.
So my opinion is obey the word, the word of God as :
St Paul writes to Timothy,
"Let a bishop has a single wife and a deacon (priest) has a single wife’.
It led Britain with God’s grace to occupy 1/4 th of the world in the last century.
 
According to the so-called “Pastoral Provision” and Anglicanorum Coetibus, ministers being received, married or otherwise, may be accepted as candidates for ordination.

That, of course, means that married men are indeed ordained to the priesthood.

That’s not necessarily the case. While it’s true that there is no “standing dispensation” for it, the Ordinaries may petition on an ad-hoc basis.
You beat me to it. There is indeed a provision allowing the Anglican Ordinaries to request permission to ordain married men to the priesthood going forward. In theory, the way I read the law, if Rome allows it, any married man who is a member of the Ordinariate could in theory be ordained to the priesthood. This could be interesting as the Ordinariate is no longer limited to converts and those born into it. Pope Francis recently decided to extend the provisions to allow any adult Catholic who has not been fully initiated (has not been confirmed or received first communion) to elect to do so via the Ordinariate and become a full member without any previous Anglican connection…
 
Bishop Gerald, of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix, recently ordained two married men to the priesthood, without fanfare. The sky has not yet fallen.
That’s the thing. In the West that would be fanfare. And a cause for more division. Just sayin.
 
You beat me to it. There is indeed a provision allowing the Anglican Ordinaries to request permission to ordain married men to the priesthood going forward. In theory, the way I read the law, if Rome allows it, any married man who is a member of the Ordinariate could in theory be ordained to the priesthood. This could be interesting as the Ordinariate is no longer limited to converts and those born into it.
Yes, that’s how it reads, and yes, this could prove to be very interesting. I wonder, though, if it will have any impact on having cum data fuerit rescinded once and for all.
 
Yes, that’s how it reads, and yes, this could prove to be very interesting. I wonder, though, if it will have any impact on having cum data fuerit rescinded once and for all.
Maybe certain Latin hearts will be softened when they see how reverent and beautiful the masses offered by married Anglican priests can be…
I have yet to attend an Anglican Use mass, but I understand that they are typically Tridentine High Masses sung in English for all intents and purposes (with a number of key differences - but I mean the general “feel”).
 
Maybe certain Latin hearts will be softened when they see how reverent and beautiful the masses offered by married Anglican priests can be…
I have yet to attend an Anglican Use mass, but I understand that they are typically Tridentine High Masses sung in English for all intents and purposes (with a number of key differences - but I mean the general “feel”).
So I’ve heard, but yet I doubt any of that will have a positive bearing on cum data fuerit and its implications. One has, I think, always to bear in mind that the East and Orient are Rome’s naughty children who must be minded constantly. Is it just me, or does Rome sound like “Super Nanny” …? :hmmm:
 
Originally Posted by babochka View Post
Bishop Gerald, of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix, recently ordained two married men to the priesthood, without fanfare. The sky has not yet fallen.
“that would be fanfare” sounds like you’re calling an ordination “fanfare”. Or at least that’s how I first read it … then I realized that perhaps you mean something like ‘if that happen in the LCC, there would be fanfare’? If so, I can certainly agree with that.
 
The provision that going forward new postulation of married priests need the approval of the Pope are exactly the same for any Latin rite postulant.
And those are very very hard to come by.
From what I read the Anglicans that joined the Ordinariate approved this provisions well before the Ordinariate was signed on by JPII.

The fact of the matter is that there are very good reasons to keep the status quo and I doubt we will see any big shifts on this discipline.

 
From what I read the Anglicans that joined the Ordinariate approved this provisions well before the Ordinariate was signed on by JPII.
As a point of clarification, the Ordinariates stem from Anglicanorum Coetibus of Benedict XVI.
The fact of the matter is that there are very good reasons to keep the status quo and I doubt we will see any big shifts on this discipline.
Whether there are “shifts” in the Latin Church isn’t my concern. Nor, I might add, that of very many Easterners and Orientals. I would expect, however, that those in the AU Ordinariates might be interested, at least insofar as it applies to their tradition.
 
The provision that going forward new postulation of married priests need the approval of the Pope are exactly the same for any Latin rite postulant.
And those are very very hard to come by.
From what I read the Anglicans that joined the Ordinariate approved this provisions well before the Ordinariate was signed on by JPII.

The fact of the matter is that there are very good reasons to keep the status quo and I doubt we will see any big shifts on this discipline.

As I’ve commented on another thread, the Ordinariates should not be seen in terms of proselytizing Anglicans. In particular, we’re not saying to Anglican priests “We want you to come over to our side, and here’s what we’re willing to do to get you to” but rather “If you, of your accord, want to become Catholic then we’ll make reasonable accommodation for you to do so.”

Having said that I would add, as time goes by and as the Ordinariates develop as entities within Catholicism, I believe we can expect to see development of the rules concerning married priests.
 
“that would be fanfare” sounds like you’re calling an ordination “fanfare”. Or at least that’s how I first read it … then I realized that perhaps you mean something like ‘if that happen in the LCC, there would be fanfare’? If so, I can certainly agree with that.
What do you mean by “if”? It’s already happened. I know of one married priest who in fact says only the Latin Mass, but certainly doesn’t advertise the fact he’s married with a family. I believe he entered through the Eastern ordination process (I don’t know exactly what that means) but we don’t ask, don’t tell.
Personally, I wish there were a lot more like him.
 
What do you mean by “if”? It’s already happened. I know of one married priest who in fact says only the Latin Mass, but certainly doesn’t advertise the fact he’s married with a family.
I can’t speak for babochka or Peter, but the way I read it, the “if” refers to the fanfare. IOW, where an ordination is done with lots of publicity.
 
What do you mean by “if”?
Well let me rephrase the question this way: you said “In the West that would be fanfare.” Did you mean “In the West that would *cause *fanfare.”? (You don’t regard an ordination as “fanfare” right?)
 
I can’t speak for babochka or Peter, but the way I read it, the “if” refers to the fanfare. IOW, where an ordination is done with lots of publicity.
Okay, I get it. Another reason to party. :D:D

Seriously, though, I wish there were more Latin Mass priests, even if they have to dig them out of graves. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top