Transfering Rites to Pursue Vocation as a Married Priest

[ausculta]

I thought that this would be frowned upon if not impermissible, but I came across an actual example of this in the “About the Author” section of Eddie Doherty’s biography, Matt Talbot. Below is the citation, parentheticals are mine:

[In 1958, Eddie met Father Joseph Raya, a Melkite Rite Catholic Priest. Father Joe knew of Eddie’s desire to be ordained a priest (he had been denied this as a Latin Rite Catholic since he was married) and sympathized with him. “If I were bishop,” he said to Eddie, “I would ordain you.” And, to everyone’s amazement, in 1968 Father Joe was made Archbishop of Haifa, Akka, Nazareth, and all Galilee – and he kept his promise.
Eddie obtained permission from Rome to transfer from the Latin Rite to the Melkite Rite of the Catholic Church, which allows married priests. In the spring of 1969, he joined Archbishop Raya in Nazareth to prepare for his ordination. It was there, on August 15th, 1969, that Eddie Doherty, aged seventy-eight, was ordained a Catholic priest of the Melkite Rite.] (pages 235-236).

As a man that has always felt a call to some form of religious life and having to nix the idea of priesthood because I was taught that the vocation of marriage and priesthood do not co-exist (I am happily married), I have had to just believe that this is God’s will. I feel upset about it.

Your thoughts?

A

 

[Corki]

Why does this upset you?

My understanding is that changing rites in order to pursue ordination is not encouraged but also not absolutely prohibited. There should be a true love of the Eastern rite itself. There are options to pursue religious life in the Roman rite too, such as the permanent diaconate. Perhaps you should meet with a vocations director and start a discernment process for whatever God is calling you too.

P.S. I love to hear about men who are listening to the call toward religious vocation, whatever form that may take.

 

[ausculta]

Why does this upset you?

My understanding is that changing rites in order to pursue ordination is not encouraged but also not absolutely prohibited. There should be a true love of the Eastern rite itself. There are options to pursue religious life in the Roman rite too, such as the permanent diaconate. Perhaps you should meet with a vocations director and start a discernment process for whatever God is calling you too.

P.S. I love to hear about men who are listening to the call toward religious vocation, whatever form that may take.

To be honest, I’ve only seen an Eastern rite once. I don’t remember which rite (Melkite, Ruthenian, etc) it was, but I remember absolutely loving the reverence and beauty of it all. But I’m not sure if I should change rites based on this past experience alone. The honest reason for why I posted the OP is (after reading this bit of history from the biography) because I think it’s completely silly that I should have to change rites to answer a call to the priesthood simply because I’m married.

My original answer to this conundrum is that it must be God’s will that the discipline of celibacy is in place. And thus a married latin-rite catholic man cannot have a valid vocation to the priesthood. But to have it in place in one sector of the Church and not in another – is this sane??? Can God say yes AND no on a question? If you have a married man (latin-rite) and a married-man (melkite-rite), both with what they believe (after discernment) to be a call to the priesthood, then is it correct to say that only the melkite has the real vocation?!? Based on that superfluous distinction? Are we all Catholics or not?

I apologize for the rant. I’ve been in vocation limbo for so long it’s become hard to make sense of things. If this is disruptive, please feel free to end the thread. I just wanted to vent.

A

 

[Odell]

I have thought about this myself I would love to be a priest. I went to a Byzantine church not sure how to spell that. And did not really like it I wonder if any of the eastern rite are anymore similar to the western rites? But at the same time I do like the fact that the roman church has celibate priest!

 

[malphono]

Guys, the bottom line is that being married and wanting to be ordained a priest is not a valid reason to transfer Churches sui juris.

There are several threads in this this forum about this same issue. Might be worth your while to do a look-up.

 

[Odell]

Guys, the bottom line is that being married and wanting to be ordained a priest is not a valid reason to transfer Churches sui juris. I know. you are right I know people like scott hahn have contiplated this I’m sure. I do think it may draw some people to a love for a certain rite but I do believe you should have a love for the whole rite and I did not fall in love with the Byzantine rite so it of course would be wrong to become Byzantine

There are several threads in this this forum about this same issue. Might be worth your while to do a look-up.

 

[Odell]

Somehow my response got messed up its in the middle of you paragraph I can’t fix it on my blackberry

 

[OhMalley]

There is also a very practical thing that would filter out a great many wannabees.

Most bishops wouldn’t accept someone into seminary (for the priesthood or diaconate) that hasn’t regularly been a part of an Eastern parish for at least 5 years. Add to that the 5-6 years of seminary.

So 10-11 years after joining a local Eastern Catholic parish and taking part in regular communion and fellowship. Not insurmountable for the sincere but it would certainly scare away the wannabees.

I would suggest that most bishops would be suspect of anyone joining an eastern parish with that intention. Now if they discerned that after being part of an Eastern parish for a few years I think their desires would be taken a great deal more seriously.

 

[ausculta]

There is also a very practical thing that would filter out a great many wannabees.

Most bishops wouldn’t accept someone into seminary (for the priesthood or diaconate) that hasn’t regularly been a part of an Eastern parish for at least 5 years. Add to that the 5-6 years of seminary.

So 10-11 years after joining a local Eastern Catholic parish and taking part in regular communion and fellowship. Not insurmountable for the sincere but it would certainly scare away the wannabees.

I would suggest that most bishops would be suspect of anyone joining an eastern parish with that intention. Now if they discerned that after being part of an Eastern parish for a few years I think their desires would be taken a great deal more seriously.

Practical? Yes, I can agree with that. Even if one were to stay within his own rite, they would have to have years of service/volunteer work in one or more parishes before being considered for the seminary (at least in my diocese).

My point is this: WHY THE LOOPHOLE??? If it’s possible, why not make it universal? I’ve heard the arguments from theology and canon law on the issue of celibacy, but until it’s universally applied I call shenanigans. Not “rite” for latins then not “rite” for anyone else

 

[Deacon_Lance]

Our Church’s (not Rite) venerable tradition is not a “loophole” for Latins who do not like the discipline of their Church.

I would also note that Fr. Eddie and Catherine Doherty, while not required to do so by the Melkite Church, voluntarily undertook celibacy after his ordination as part of their vows at the Madonna House Apostolate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[bpbasilphx]

Keep in mind also that the late Kyr Joseph was a bit…let’s say out of the ordinary.

He might have been a fool-for-Christ’s-sake.

But keep in mind that you would FIRST have to demonstrate a vocation to live and worship as an Eastern Christian BEFORE even being considered a candidate for orders.

And one does not “change rites”, btw. One changes enrollment in a sui juris church.

 

[Aramis]

Practical? Yes, I can agree with that. Even if one were to stay within his own rite, they would have to have years of service/volunteer work in one or more parishes before being considered for the seminary (at least in my diocese).

My point is this: WHY THE LOOPHOLE??? If it’s possible, why not make it universal? I’ve heard the arguments from theology and canon law on the issue of celibacy, but until it’s universally applied I call shenanigans. Not “rite” for latins then not “rite” for anyone else

It’s not a loophole.

If you don’t love the rite, and live the rite, you can’t truly be part of the spiritual life of any parish you would serve. It’s been noticable that certain biritual priests always struggle to find what the devout translates had easily: a sense of what it is to be Byzantine (or Coptic, or Armenian, or Syriac, or Chaldean…etc).

 

[Odell]

I don’t think it should be a problem for a particular rite to alow someone to be in there rith for a while before becoming a preast. But at the same time I really don’t see a big deal if someone feels the call to priesthood but married who would then decern a different rite. I do think though that that someone should fall in love with the whole rite not just one particular aspect. When we want people to join the Church we don’t want them to join for one particular thing we want them to love and accept it all. If married priesthood draws someone I think other deciplines should as well for me married priesthood drew me but so did the relics the incense the prayers. But there was other things that made me respect the latin right and I just fell more at home here in the latin right. I hope our Pope brings reverence back to our mass that I see in the eastern church!

 

[bpbasilphx]

It’s been noticable that certain biritual priests always struggle to find what the devout translates had easily: a sense of what it is to be Byzantine (or Coptic, or Armenian, or Syriac, or Chaldean…etc).

I’ve noticed that many such are of two varieties: Roman Catholics who say mass funny, or Latin priests with hobbies.

 

[HappyRevert]

I have to agree with you that it is confusing. My daughter is Ukrainian by birth and I went to a Catholic church in Ukraine while adopting her so I came face to face with the difference. I would suggest that maybe you should explore if you are being called to the different rite. It shouldn’t be only for the priesthood, but the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways so perhaps your gifts would be best used there? I’m a firm believer in exploring these things because you never know what life will bring.

 

[Aramis]

The other thing is that there is an expectation for married men that their vocation is not just felt by them, but by those around them.

Especially the wife. If wife says no, forget it.

Many seminary programs, even distance ed ones, require testimonials from fellow parishioners that the potential seminarian has a suitable charism for ordination prior to enrollment; many bishops screen for it, too.

 

[ausculta]

Guys, the bottom line is that being married and wanting to be ordained a priest is not a valid reason to transfer Churches sui juris.

I agree; however, one shouldn’t have to consider leaving one Church for another to pursue a vocation. That is the real issue.

Ultimately I submit to Mother Church as a faithful son, but it still irks me to no end. I do, however, understand that in order to maintain unity among the Churches that this will just have to be one of those fuzzy areas we must all tolerate so that “they may be one.”

I hope I haven’t insulted my eastern family in any way by posting this here. If so, I humbly apologize. I’m just jealous

 

[ausculta]

Our Church’s (not Rite) venerable tradition is not a “loophole” for Latins who do not like the discipline of their Church.

I would also note that Fr. Eddie and Catherine Doherty, while not required to do so by the Melkite Church, voluntarily undertook celibacy after his ordination as part of their vows at the Madonna House Apostolate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks for your information, Father.

I was aware that Mr. and Mrs. Doherty had taken the three evangelical vows (poverty, chastity and obedience) when dedicating their lives to that lay apostolate, but I was not aware of a vow of celibacy.

In Christ,

A

 

[ausculta]

I just wanted to thank everyone here for tolerating this irked Latin. Ever since my return to the Church two years ago I have been spending a lot of time discerning my place in the scheme of things on this side of heaven. The priesthood was a dream that I did look into in my youth. I went to a formation house right out of high school, but the dream ended and my faith life train-wrecked when I left the Church a semester after entering formation.

Now that I’m home again I still have the same inclinations toward religious life. The one thing different now is that I’m married. And as a Latin we cannot have both a vocation to marriage and a vocation to priesthood existing simultaneously…unless one perhaps has a vocation to a different rite within the Church. That citation from Fr. Doherty’s book set me off for days. And it’s this disturbance that continues to bother my spirit.

At this time I am not aware of an inclination to change rites. I love the Latin rite. I love the Latin (traditional) spirituality. I love Latin devotions. But can anyone understand my confusion?

Thanks for letting my say my peace. I will spend more time in prayer. Perhaps I will visit the Ruthenian parish here in Houston, too, and see if something clicks. God’s will be done

A

 

[malphono]

I just wanted to thank everyone here for tolerating this irked Latin. Ever since my return to the Church two years ago I have been spending a lot of time discerning my place in the scheme of things on this side of heaven. The priesthood was a dream that I did look into in my youth. I went to a formation house right out of high school, but the dream ended and my faith life train-wrecked when I left the Church a semester after entering formation.

Now that I’m home again I still have the same inclinations toward religious life. The one thing different now is that I’m married. And as a Latin we cannot have both a vocation to marriage and a vocation to priesthood existing simultaneously…unless one perhaps has a vocation to a different rite within the Church. That citation from Fr. Doherty’s book set me off for days. And it’s this disturbance that continues to bother my spirit.

At this time I am not aware of an inclination to change rites. I love the Latin rite. I love the Latin (traditional) spirituality. I love Latin devotions. But can anyone understand my confusion?

Thanks for letting my say my peace. I will spend more time in prayer. Perhaps I will visit the Ruthenian parish here in Houston, too, and see if something clicks. God’s will be done

A

My :twocents: is that you consider the “Permanent” Diaconate in the Latin Church. (I put “permanent” in quotes because it’s not necessarily permanent: the discipline in the Latin Church could (at least in theory) change tomorrow, in which case “permanent” could become “transitional” and you’d be 3/4 of the way home already.) In any case, though, the Diaconate is a Major Order and imparts its indelible mark.

And BTW, if you are so inclined, insist on learning the EF. A deacon is a deacon, and there’s no reason that a “permanent” deacon who wants to do so cannot fulfill the assigned role in the EF.