Why is celibacy required of Eastern Catholic priests?

[Ghosty]

Byzantine Catholic priests were allowed to be married until sometime around the 1940s, when that privilege was taken away. Unfortunately, Byzantine (Greek Catholic) priests were always treated like second citizens. And over time, Rome gradually started breaking its promises and taking away privileges that had been guaranteed in the original agreement–including the right for priests to be married.

First off, welcome to the Forums!

Now, to respond to this portion of your post, it must be made clear that this was only the case in places like the U.S. which are outside the traditional boundaries of Eastern Catholic territory and are predominantly Latin. It was not the case across the board, and today even that restriction doesn’t apply (except, apparently, in the case of the Ruthenian Church alone, which is odd to say the least).

As for things like the three-bar cross, I don’t recall ever seeing anything to indicate that it’s been forbidden, at least not by Rome. It sounds like the Ruthenian Church has a very strong “Latinized” contingent, even/especially among the Bishops, and that may be why such traditions disappeared.

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

Today, three-bar crosses are no longer allowed. They had to be changed to the Latin two-bar cross.

I’m not Byzantine, but I’ve never heard of any such prohibition.

In the U.S., the traditional “iconastisis,” which was a magnificent, ornate wall of icons separating the congregation from the altar, have been torn down to make the churches more like the Latin churches. It was a shame because these were elegant and costly masterpieces that the people had paid for…and to many, a sign of disrespect.

A very dear friend of mine is a Ruthenian priest, and I recall from some years ago that he told the story a bit differently. It’s true that the pro-latinization factions had removed the inconistsi from some Ruthenian churhces in the US, but not all of them. In any case, he was assigned pastor (30+ years ago) at one of the churches where it had been removed, and he was able, with the interest and support of the congregation, to restore it. From what he told me, the congregation was thrilled to have it.

On the other hand, the Latin Church has adopted some of the practices that were traditional in the Byzantine Catholic Church–like singing the mass, confessing face-to-face with the priest instead of in a confessional.

That may be true, but don;t think for a moment that it had anything to do with “Byzantine influence.”

 

[aspirant]

And yet married Ruthenian men are being ordained. Not many, perhaps, but it does rule out “never… due to his marital status.”

It’s accurate. At least one name has been provided on this very thread.

 

[aspirant]

Today, three-bar crosses are no longer allowed.

They’re used in all the Ruthenian churches I’ve worked in, attended, and visited. Where are you living?

In the U.S., the traditional “iconastisis,” which was a magnificent, ornate wall of icons separating the congregation from the altar, have been torn down to make the churches more like the Latin churches.

I’ve never been in a Ruthenian church in the United States without an iconostasis.

 

[Patchunky]

They’re used in all the Ruthenian churches I’ve worked in, attended, and visited. Where are you living?

I’ve never been in a Ruthenian church in the United States without an iconostasis.

Where are you living?

There are some parishers, most of them older parishes, that could not afford to put in an ikonostas. If you look at the 75th anniversary book, you find them in there. Some are in Pittsburgh Archeparchy, some in Parma Eparchy and some in Passaic Eparchy.

In some cases, an ikonostas has been installed since the book was published… St. John the Baptist in Uniontown,PA and St. John the Baptist in Hazelton, PA and in some cases they still don’t have one, St. Nicholas in Perryopolis…

 

[Aramis]

No, the difference is that those are the full time ministries of those priests, they are not also assigned as a pastor of a parish.

Sorry, Brother David, but wrong. Very Rev. Leo Walsh, during his tenure as Pastor of St. Andrew Catholic Parish in Eagle River, was also assigned to work at the Chancery half the week.

Rev. Fr. Michael Hornig was assigned as Acting Pastor of St Nicholas, a Ruthenian Parish, whilst still working in the Chancery of the local Roman Archdiocese. (He was released from the chancery not long into his time.)

Several priests of the Archdiocese of Anchorage over the years have worked in both the parish and in some other ministry, simply to make ends meet on the diocese’s staffing.

 

[sidbrown]

At the Union of Brest (and later at the Union of Mukachevo), the Ruthenian church leadership (i.e., Orthodox Bishops) agreed to unit with Rome on the condition that they be allowed to maintain their Eastern (Orthodox) traditions. (At that time, they were referred to as “uniates.”)

The traditions they were promised to be able to keep included celebrating the Divine Liturgy (mass) in the Old Slavonic rather than Latin tongue, crossing themselves from right to left (rather than left to right in the Latin tradition), using the three-bar cross, serving communion with bread and wine (rather than a wafer), allowing priests to be married, and much more.
…
Byzantine Catholic priests were allowed to be married until sometime around the 1940s, when that privilege was taken away. Unfortunately, Byzantine (Greek Catholic) priests were always treated like second citizens. And over time, Rome gradually started breaking its promises and taking away privileges that had been guaranteed in the original agreement–including the right for priests to be married.

If it is true as you say it is that Rome has broken a promise given to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, would it be a legitimate concern for the Orthodox Church if they did contemplate a reunion with Rome?

 

[Hesychios]

If it is true as you say it is that Rome has broken a promise given to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church …

There were ‘promises’ of a sort assured to the Ukrainians/Belorussians at Brest UGCC] because there were Orthodox bishops involved in the process who made certain requests in their proposal.

For the sub-Carpathian Ruthenians BCC] the situation was a bit different. Fifty years had passed since Brest, the actual Orthodox bishop of the area was locked up by a Protestant lord and the region was, at the time, rather impoverished.

Latin priests were getting salaries from the (Hungarian) state. Orthodox priests were not functionaries of the state church, and they operated under some legal disabilities as representing something of an alien church.

I am writing from memory at the moment, but as I recall the records show that the union of Uzhorod took place between 63 priests and a Hungarian Latin Catholic bishop. The priests were placed under the Latin bishop of Eger, and later ordaining bishops for the rite were suffragens or auxiliaries of the bishops of Eger.

It seems to me like the ecclesiastical structure in the region was largely rebuilt, not taken in whole as at the Union of Brest. The articles of the union of Brest did not apply, the original document is hard to find on the internet (I think I found it here, but I cannot open this link in China, so you will have to see it yourself). One account I remember reading stated that the Byzantine priests were made vicars to Latin rite pastors (and presumably were given salaries). I have no way of knowing how accurate this all is, and am willing to accept correction.

… would it be a legitimate concern for the Orthodox Church if they did contemplate a reunion with Rome?

What concerns Orthodox to some extent is that, for the greater good (read: for the Latin church), Eastern Catholics have had to accept impositions and compromises to their spirituality and praxis. Since the Latin church is fifty times the size of all EC churches put together, it stands to reason that it’s needs and concerns will be seen as greater much of the time.

Do most Orthodox care that EC’s have been dumped on? I don’t know.

What I do know is that three Orthodox churches in North America (namely ACROD, most of the OCA and some of the Ukrainian Orthodox) were to a substantial extent founded by Eastern Catholics who experienced these impositions, and that a number of living members of Orthodox churches (including priests and deacons) spent some time in eastern Catholic churches. So it’s not like they are completely unaware of what has happened in the past.

Still, I want to state that it was not entirely the fault of Rome. Sometimes the local Latin church, or the local Catholic government, went too far and had to be reigned in by the Popes (who apparently knew the danger these shenanigans put the church in). Sometimes Rome inadvertantly sent signals that encouraged problems (like by declaring “the Roman Rite is to be preferred” Etsi Pastoralis).

When the synods of Baltimore declared the Roman rite to be the standard for the United States it was the local Latin bishops and clergy who decided that. But Rome approved the documents, one would think that the Vatican would have had the foresight to point out that Eastern Catholics were given promises that must be kept.

 

[Aramis]

The Roots of the OCA are NOT in the Greek Catholics, but in the fact that the Russians owned what is now Alaska, and had settlements all the way down to Northern California, and the US bought Alaska in the late 19th C. Alaska is STILL almost 20% Russian Orthodox. About a 3rd of the villages are Orthodox. (about a 3rd are Catholic, too.)

Were there not a strong bastion of Orthodoxy in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, there likely would have been no Orthodox for the Greek Catholics who fled to the OCA to flee to.

 

[Hesychios]

The Roots of the OCA are NOT in the Greek Catholics, but in the fact that the Russians owned what is now Alaska, and had settlements all the way down to Northern California, and the US bought Alaska in the late 19th C. Alaska is STILL almost 20% Russian Orthodox. About a 3rd of the villages are Orthodox. (about a 3rd are Catholic, too.)

Were there not a strong bastion of Orthodoxy in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, there likely would have been no Orthodox for the Greek Catholics who fled to the OCA to flee to.

I am not speaking of roots here, but of numbers. Most of the parishes of the OCA (Russian Metropolia) in the early 20th century (and therefore dioceses) were indeed founded by Eastern Catholics at the critical point of expansion. My terms were generalized and not the best and I apologize for that. Your point is accepted.

The bulk of the membership and parishes of the Russian Metropolia [OCA] derives from Eastern Catholics who arrived at some port or other on the east coast of the United States between 1880 and about 1930.

Secondarily, there was immigration from the Russian empire (restricted somewhat by quotas). Of course, this ethnic group had to deal with the Bolshevik crises back home and many ultimately aligned themselves with the Russian Church Abroad (as opposed to the Metropolia), others stuck with the Patriarchate (the Metropolia) and of those some (with the Tomos of Autocephaly) chose to be representation parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate. The bulk of the OCA (in the lower 48) has been Rusyn/Galician, derived from schism in the Ruthenian Catholic and Ukrainian Catholic churches (these two were undifferentiated at the time, Rome had not separated them).

Naturally, the OCA is proud of it’s missionary beginnings among the natives of the north-west.

 

[Diak]

You are both correct - Alaska and the West Coast are largely formed by native Russian communities that were never Greek Catholic, but most of the OCA in the eastern half of the US can be traced back to defections of Greek Catholic clergy and laity post-Ireland/Toth or post-Cum Data Fuerit times. The OCA, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese can all largely be attributed to former Greek Catholics.

 

[Diak]

To answer the opening post, celibacy is not required in my particular Church (UGCC), and in fact in my Eparchy we have about 2/3 married pariochial clergy. This was a guarantee given in the Union of Brest, and wisely Pope Pius XII allowed Cum Data Fuerit to expire in the US without renewing it. The UGCC reinstated ordaining married men in North America since the 70s, the Melkites a bit later, and the Romanians have done so as well more recently.

I haven’t done a hard number check, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many married Latin clergy in North America as our UGCC clergy at the present.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sorry, Brother David, but wrong. Very Rev. Leo Walsh, during his tenure as Pastor of St. Andrew Catholic Parish in Eagle River, was also assigned to work at the Chancery half the week.

Rev. Fr. Michael Hornig was assigned as Acting Pastor of St Nicholas, a Ruthenian Parish, whilst still working in the Chancery of the local Roman Archdiocese. (He was released from the chancery not long into his time.)

Several priests of the Archdiocese of Anchorage over the years have worked in both the parish and in some other ministry, simply to make ends meet on the diocese’s staffing.

Anecdotal, a handful of cases to not make it the norm, these are exceptions. Also I would draw a line between working a job outside of the parish (mainly a secular job) and, what we in a religious order, would call an internal ministry.

Again, you just are not understanding me. This is not something so important that you understand where I am coming from. Its best to just agree to disagree.

But do know this is possibility was one of the many considerations that help me decide that my discernment was for religious life rather than the secular priesthood and as the active religious life is serious lacking in our Churchs I was forced to joined a Latin order.

 

[lemkorusyn]

Greek Catholic married men are ordain priests today, the Vatican has not made an issue of it one way or the other. The only ones who prevent Byzantine Rite bishops from ordaining married men TODAY are themselves - the Melkites and Ukrainians do so openly, I think it’s mainly the Ruthenians that are still hesitant.

 

[lemkorusyn]

Greek Orthodox, yes. Greek Catholic, no. To clarify, the Eastern Christian churches all used to be called “Greek”, which many interpreted to be a church of Greece. Today, the Eastern Catholic church of the Ruthenians is no longer referred to as “Greek Catholic” but rather “Byzantine,” Catholic. The Byzantine Catholic Church stopped allowing married priests a long time ago. That’s one of the things that caused a rift in the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church and cause many of its churches to return to Orthodoxy, where priests are allowed to marry.

 

[lemkorusyn]

They’re used in all the Ruthenian churches I’ve worked in, attended, and visited. Where are you living?

I’ve never been in a Ruthenian church in the United States without an iconostasis.

I now live in California but grew up in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland areas. When I visited my old church in my hometown (Donora, PA) a few years ago, I was shocked and cried to see that the beautiful iconastasis I remembered from my childhood had been completely torn down. It was replaced with a vew vertical bars with an icon attached.

Check out St. Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church in Parma, Ohio. It was built with no iconastasis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Greek Orthodox, yes. Greek Catholic, no. To clarify, the Eastern Christian churches all used to be called “Greek”, which many interpreted to be a church of Greece. Today, the Eastern Catholic church of the Ruthenians is no longer referred to as “Greek Catholic” but rather “Byzantine,” Catholic. The Byzantine Catholic Church stopped allowing married priests a long time ago. That’s one of the things that caused a rift in the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church and cause many of its churches to return to Orthodoxy, where priests are allowed to marry.

When you say Byzantine Catholic Church you must really specify which of the many Byzantine Catholic Churches you are speaking of.

Their is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Romanian Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, or the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church.

As you can see, two of the Churches of the Byzantine rite still use Greek Catholic within their names.

All of them have ordained married men in the United States so I do not understand how you can say that they do not do so.

You are in error.

 

[lemkorusyn]

First off, welcome to the Forums!

As for things like the three-bar cross, I don’t recall ever seeing anything to indicate that it’s been forbidden, at least not by Rome. It sounds like the Ruthenian Church has a very strong “Latinized” contingent, even/especially among the Bishops, and that may be why such traditions disappeared.

Rome is not Eastern Christian territory. Go to the Ruthenian homeland in places like southeastern Poland and northeastern Slovakia (which are Latin Rite countries) and you will see that the three-bar cross is disappearing in Byzantine Catholic churches. In Transcarpathia, which is part of Ukraine, which is predominantly an Eastern Christian country, the three-bar cross still exists.

While many Byzantine Catholic Churches in the U.S. may still display the three-bar cross, in Eastern Europe, which is the homeland of the Ruthenians, this is not necessarily true in those countries that are predominantly Roman Catholic (Latin Rite).

During Soviet rule, in countries like Poland and Slovakia, the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church was outlawed. They were either turned over to the Orthodox Church, closed, or destroyed. It was only after the fall of communism that the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic churches were returned to Rome.

Unfortunately, during nearly fifty years of Soviet rule, the Byzantine Catholics had no church to go to except the Orthodox church. So many remained Orthodox. So today, many former Byzantine Catholic churches are being used for Latin masses–or hold both Latin masses and Byzantine liturgies.

The priest at one such church told us that the instruction to change the three-bar crosses to two-bar crosses originated in the 1880’s. But there was some leniency. The change only had to be made when the church made repairs or other changes. So it took many years before you started seeing the results. When communism fell and the churches were returned to Rome, many were in disrepair after having been closed for so many years. So when the churches were repaired, the three-bar crosses were turned into two-bar crosses.

I, frankly, don’t know if or how this applies to Byzantine Catholic churches in the U.S.
I do know, however, that very little of the liturgy is sung in the Old Slavonic anymore. The Ruthenian ethnicity seems to no longer be part of the church, which is now serving a much more diverse group of parishoners. But I sure do miss the old times!!

 

[Deacon_Lance]

“But as of today, when the new law takes effect, “it is possible to ordain a married deacon [to the priesthood], with permission from Rome. The door is not closed,” said Metropolitan Judson Procyk of Pittsburgh, who has championed the traditional Eastern married priesthood. Eastern Catholic churches are under the authority of the pope, but follow the liturgy and many practices of Orthodoxy.”
post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991002byzantine4.asp

 

[malphono]

The Ruthenian ethnicity seems to no longer be part of the church, which is now serving a much more diverse group of parishoners. But I sure do miss the old times!!

That comment echoes an old friend of mine. He happens to be one of (what appears to me more and more) the unusual Ruthenian priests who still holds to satroslavenski as much as he can.

The total abandonment of any of our venerable liturgical languages is, IMHO, a great loss, and if left unchecked, one that may cause irreversible harm.