FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope allows married clergyman convert to remain married and become priest. Gasp!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
He meant the Pastoral Provision. I'd post more info if I were not on a phone.
It wasn't absolutely unheard of before Vatican II. Pope Pius XII gave permission for a few married ex-Lutheran ministers to be ordained after World War II. Granted, the first one in America was ordained during Vatican II. His permission was granted by Pius XII only to be rescinded by John XXIII. Finally a few years later he got his approval. Here's an article about him from 1964:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...70,00.html

I find it interesting that having a married priest was considered too scandalous for the USA but not for Europe. That's an interesting prediction by Cardinal Cushing at the end too.
(02-23-2011, 04:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]I find it interesting that having a married priest was considered too scandalous for the USA but not for Europe.

You can thank the (predominantly) Irish Episcopate for that. They convinced St Pius X to issue the Apostolic Letter Ea Semper in 1907 forbidding married Eastern Rite priests in North America. As a result, by 1916 we had lost 163 Eastern parishes and +/- 100,000 faithful to the schismatics.
(02-23-2011, 04:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]Granted, the first one in America was ordained during Vatican II. His permission was granted by Pius XII only to be rescinded by John XXIII. Finally a few years later he got his approval. Here's an article about him from 1964:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...70,00.html

That article makes the same weird assumption about a man having to abandon his wife in order to become a priest, as the one I cited. Here:
Time Magazine Wrote:Canon law has insisted on priestly celibacy since the Middle Ages, although Eastern-Rite Catholic priests may marry before their ordination. But within the past 13 years, Popes have from time to time approved the ordination of a few convert Protestant ministers for whom leaving their families would be a heartless cruelty.

Has it ever been the case that the Latin Church has told a married man: Ok, you can become a priest, but you have to renounce to your family first?

This Time article is much more accurate than the AP joke, but it shows that the mainstream doesn't get it. The issue isn't having priests who have families of their own. The issue is ordaining men who already have families of their own. Married men may be allowed to get ordained as priests, but I doubt priests will ever be allowed to get married. But the MSN keeps hoping for the latter (well, it also hopes for womyn priests).

(02-23-2011, 04:31 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]You can thank the (predominantly) Irish Episcopate for that. They convinced St Pius X to issue the Apostolic Letter Ea Semper in 1907 forbidding married Eastern Rite priests in North America. As a result, by 1916 we had lost 163 Eastern parishes and +/- 100,000 faithful to the schismatics.

I understand why forbidding married Eastern Rites priests would produce such a priest shortage that many Eastern Rite parishes would close, but why should it cause widespread schism? If an Eastern Rite Catholic were to find himself without an Eastern Rite Catholic parish, he should join whatever Catholic parish is available, even it it is Latin Rite. If those Eastern Rite Catholics in the early XXth century ran off into the Eastern Orthodox Church, they weren't faithful Catholics to begin with.

I honestly would say the mostly-Irish bishops were right. The American continent is the West, not the East. Having married priests in some bits of land in a place where celibate priests are the norm, would only cause confusion and, yes, scandal.

I don't like ethnic parishes either, or even Masses is foreign languages. Immigrants should attend the same Mass as everyone else, instead of isolating themselves. Even if they don't understand the language of the land. Which should they be learning. But the United States is a bizarre place, I guess.
That's why the mass should be in Latin only (in the Latin rite) because then anyone from any ethnic or linguistic background can attend and don't have to be ghettoized.
Having married priests is not "confusing" or a "scandal;" those that they so, are acting like ignorami.
(02-23-2011, 07:48 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]I understand why forbidding married Eastern Rites priests would produce such a priest shortage that many Eastern Rite parishes would close, but why should it cause widespread schism? If an Eastern Rite Catholic were to find himself without an Eastern Rite Catholic parish, he should join whatever Catholic parish is available, even it it is Latin Rite. If those Eastern Rite Catholics in the early XXth century ran off into the Eastern Orthodox Church, they weren't faithful Catholics to begin with.

This.
ON the pauline privlege It used to appear on the ewtn q and a forums plenty of the time. I know there will be some of you that say bad stuff about ewtn. but they also have a fair amount of traditionalism, they show tridentine mass on the first saturdays at the shrine, and they are the only widely known catholic tv and radio channel beside vatican radio of course.

anyway many things were differant back then before the v2 days, and there were many places where you could only go to church where you were registered that was the rule, and as for ethnic churches they brought a richness in their own traditions as catholics, like german stainglass, of the polish cathedral style buildings.  but yea they all did the mass in latin it was one no matter where you went and made it easier to follow church services. 

As for priests that were married They have to have promission but its not all that unheard of.

There are also some men that became priests in religious order after their wife died and their kids no longer dependent on them that is they were old enough they had many kids of their own. 


My understanding is that the whole non married clergy thing is because jesus was not married, and to prevent dynastys from happening in the church though there were familys that where brothers used their power to advance their family in the old days of the church. and some of the coruption  before the reformation and the anti popes.
Married clergy is an abuse from the East that was tolerated by the Holy See. 

Clerical continence was the norm for both East and West.

Here's a good (but long) article on the subject:

part 1 the apostolic origins of clerical celibacy in both East and West with development in the West

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/m...hist1.html

part 2: more on the history of the West then the Oriental history showing the break from Tradition against the shared tradition with the Latin Church.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/m...hist2.html
Pages: 1 2 3