Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Apotheoun]

nothing will ever get fixed by the spirit of 'stability', things will only get fixed by the spirit of tradition--passing down what was given by the Apostles, not necessarily clinging to the current historical status quo,

Spirit of tradition? Is that anything like the "spirit of Vatican II"? Roman Catholicism doesn't need more change; instead, it needs to regain a sense of Tradition, which is not about changing things to fit our perceived needs, but is about handing on unchanged what we have received from generation to generation going back to the Apostles.

 

I talk to Roman Catholics at the parishes near my house on a regular basis, and many of them think of things that their parish has been doing for a couple of years as "tradition." The fact that some of these "traditions" make no sense, or even undermine the real nature of the liturgy, is irrelevant to them. There is a name for the lack of real Tradition within a Christian context, and it's called Protestantism.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

it's a major change, but it's not at all comparable to the 1969 liturgical changes.

I think it is, but that is probably because I think the real motivation for the change is simply to fit better in the modern Western world. I do not think it is about being more like the Eastern Churches.

[Maggyie]

Here is an example, from a parish near my house, of the really bad modern images that I am talking about:

 

Holographic Jesus cross

 

Recently renovated parish, which looks a lot like the old Methodist Church I attended as a boy (just replace the table with a pulpit).

 

What gorgeous stained glass! What a hideous... "crucifix." It looks like they were trying to tie it into the colors of the stained glass. Interior design fail. I think I see some neat statues way in the back. This church has good bones and could easily be put back together again.
 

[Aloysius]

completely irrelevant to anything I said, of course, but thanks :)

 

I contrasted the spirit of tradition with some sort of spirit of status quo or stability.  nothing to do with the "spirit and the law" idea that leads to people invoking a spirit of Vatican II, but I guess any metaphor with the word spirit in it is totally out now? 

 

a whole generation of people have received problematic things from the previous generation.  the only way out is rediscovering traditions, and that doesn't quite need to mean rediscovering 1950's Catholicism.  it could mean rediscovering Sarum Rite traditions within the Anglophone world, it could mean rediscovering a notion of priesthood that isn't constrained totally by mandatory celibacy... but no matter what it means, whether it's returning to some aspects of the pre-1962 liturgy or anything else, it's already going to mean rediscovering things that were not passed down properly in the whole mess we've found ourselves in.

[Apotheoun]

. . . there are many incidental ways in which the married priesthood could bring us closer, but of course it's by no means a big issue that would advance unity per se, that's not at all what I'm saying.

I think most of my Orthodox friends would not feel any closer to the Roman Church because of that particular change. I think if the Roman Church returned its liturgy to a more ancient format, i.e., made it look less like a Protestant service, that that would actually be a more effective way to bring East and West closer together.

[Apotheoun]

What gorgeous stained glass! What a hideous... "crucifix." It looks like they were trying to tie it into the colors of the stained glass. Interior design fail. I think I see some neat statues way in the back. This church has good bones and could easily be put back together again.
 

Yeah, they wanted to get rid of those, but too many people complained, and so the old stain glass windows were "recycled."

[Aloysius]

I think it is, but that is probably because I think the real motivation for the change is simply to fit better in the modern Western world. I do not think it is about being more like the Eastern Churches.

many of my Coptic friends feel that a married priesthood is necessary to better fit into Oriental society.  there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the priesthood serves the culture it fits into in the best possible way.  I think it's entirely possible as others have said that we need priestly role models for marriage and family life in the current wasteland of the family... that's not conforming to the culture, though, that's ministering to it.

[Apotheoun]

I contrasted the spirit of tradition with some sort of spirit of status quo or stability.  nothing to do with the "spirit and the law" idea that leads to people invoking a spirit of Vatican II, but I guess any metaphor with the word spirit in it is totally out now? 

Tradition is that which is believed always, everywhere, and by all, and so it is not meant to be constantly changing. Tradition is alive because it is vivified by the living Spirit of God, it is not alive because it has to change all the time.

[Apotheoun]

many of my Coptic friends feel that a married priesthood is necessary to better fit into Oriental society.  there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the priesthood serves the culture it fits into in the best possible way.  I think it's entirely possible as others have said that we need priestly role models for marriage and family life in the current wasteland of the family... that's not conforming to the culture, though, that's ministering to it.

:hehe2:

 

Look, I'm an Eastern Catholic, so I am all for a married priesthood, but the Roman Church has no history of that (at least no large scale recent history of it), and so I think the change would ultimately be bad for the Western Church, because it has no experience with it, and it will also breed into the common perception among many Roman Catholics that everything can be changed if the pope or the bishops want it to change.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

If the Western Church had not abruptly changed its liturgy in 1969 by replacing the historic Roman liturgy with an artificial reconstruction created by a committee of scholars, then perhaps considering a change in the discipline of priestly celibacy could be considered. But after forty years of constant changes I think that this will just cause more turmoil and new divisions.

[Aloysius]

nah, if a married priesthood is a good thing, then it's a good thing.  why can't the Roman Church learn from the Eastern Churches about some things that work well, especially considering the rapidly shifting culture that is completely different than the culture in which mandatory celibacy was introduced, that is so different even from the culture in which mandatory celibacy was thriving for so long half a century or so ago?

 

as to what kind of PR it fits into, while that is of course a concern, I don't think that should be at all the dominant question when people ask whether this discipline should be maintained or relaxed.

[Apotheoun]

nah, if a married priesthood is a good thing, then it's a good thing.  why can't the Roman Church learn from the Eastern Churches about some things that work well, especially considering the rapidly shifting culture that is completely different than the culture in which mandatory celibacy was introduced, that is so different even from the culture in which mandatory celibacy was thriving for so long half a century or so ago?

 

as to what kind of PR it fits into, while that is of course a concern, I don't think that should be at all the dominant question when people ask whether this discipline should be maintained or relaxed.

So is celibacy bad? I see no reason for this change at this particular moment in history. In fact, the hyper-sexualized nature of the West is probably a good reason to avoid this change.

 

In the end, if this is done, I know we will see new divisions in the Roman Catholic Church. Such is life I suppose. And the carnival atmosphere in the liturgy at many Roman parishes will continue and ecumenism will suffer. I do not see why the Roman Church always chooses to cause new problems for itself instead of actually solving the one glaring problem that blocks real progress with the Orthodox.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

If the Western Church had not abruptly changed its liturgy in 1969 by replacing the historic Roman liturgy with an artificial reconstruction created by a committee of scholars, then perhaps considering a change in the discipline of priestly celibacy could be considered. But after forty years of constant changes I think that this will just cause more turmoil and new divisions.

no matter what you do at this point it's going to be a change... people were complaining about the new English Translation as this big time change, for instance, along those same lines.  the only way to return to tradition is to move forward with refreshingly traditional ideas.  again I don't know that there's any scenario in which a married priesthood will find a way to move forward traditionally, but I'm open to the possibilities... to possibilities in which monasteries become the places where bishops are formed, for instance, that's one of the most exciting possibilities in my eyes.

[Apotheoun]

no matter what you do at this point it's going to be a change... people were complaining about the new English Translation as this big time change, for instance, along those same lines.  the only way to return to tradition is to move forward with refreshingly traditional ideas.  again I don't know that there's any scenario in which a married priesthood will find a way to move forward traditionally, but I'm open to the possibilities... to possibilities in which monasteries become the places where bishops are formed, for instance, that's one of the most exciting possibilities in my eyes.

Change (constant change) is the end result when you have an all powerful hierarch who is not bound by Tradition. Once the Roman Church replaced its apostolic liturgy with a scholarly reconstruction it started down the same road taken by the Protestant Reformers almost five centuries ago.

[Apotheoun]

As my Orthodox friends like to point out . . . if an Orthodox bishop replaced the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with the Liturgy of Bishop Nicholas (or whoever), he would be immediately excommunicated by the bishops in the surrounding eparchies, and his own flock would shun him.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun