Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Aloysius]

of course I tend to agree with you, that doesn't change much though... it was an all-powerful patriarch that established mandatory celibacy, too.... what if the Pope opened it up for local synods to establish their own disciplines regarding celibacy?  would that be any better or worse (I honestly don't know haha, being ultramontane in the Roman Church is sort of a necessity even if you want a more first millenial ecclesiology, because despite the problems the stroke-of-the-pen papacy can cause, it's still a better guarantee for tradition than local bishops conferences these days.

 

kind of like how some Brits argue that the monarchy actually protects their individual rights against government overreach better than the US Constitution, even though a Constitution might be better in theory (don't take that example too literally, of course, it's just an argument I've heard made even if it is wrong in that case)

[Apotheoun]

of course I tend to agree with you, that doesn't change much though... it was an all-powerful patriarch that established mandatory celibacy, too.... what if the Pope opened it up for local synods to establish their own disciplines regarding celibacy?  would that be any better or worse (I honestly don't know haha, being ultramontane in the Roman Church is sort of a necessity even if you want a more first millenial ecclesiology, because despite the problems the stroke-of-the-pen papacy can cause, it's still a better guarantee for tradition than local bishops conferences these days.

 

kind of like how some Brits argue that the monarchy actually protects their individual rights against government overreach better than the US Constitution, even though a Constitution might be better in theory (don't take that example too literally, of course, it's just an argument I've heard made even if it is wrong in that case)

Actually, it was a Western council that instituted mandatory celibacy (i.e., restricted ordination to unmarried men). 

 

Prior to that council the popes (and other Western bishops) had ordained married men, but of course they (i.e., those ordained) were required to be continent after their ordination, which is an ancient Western practice going back many centuries prior to the institution of celibacy for those receiving Holy Orders. The East, on the other hand, established its practice in the Quinsext canons at the Council in Trullo.

 

Changing the current Roman practice will only cause new divisions, but maybe that is what people want.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

ah I stand corrected on that particular point.

 

I doubt changing the current practice would actually cause any new divisions, though perhaps the SSPX might become further entrenched in their situation.

 

either way none of this will be decided by us, which is why I prefer to offer the ways we should interpret such disciplinary changes rather than rail against them as 'just another change'--because I don't think it would be 'just another change'... maybe there are some reasons that might make its realization in a traditional context difficult, but the idea of married priests in the West is not, in and of itself, a bad idea.

[Apotheoun]

ah I stand corrected on that particular point.

 

I doubt changing the current practice would actually cause any new divisions, though perhaps the SSPX might become further entrenched in their situation.

 

either way none of this will be decided by us, which is why I prefer to offer the ways we should interpret such disciplinary changes rather than rail against them as 'just another change'--because I don't think it would be 'just another change'... maybe there are some reasons that might make its realization in a traditional context difficult, but the idea of married priests in the West is not, in and of itself, a bad idea.

Change, unless it is handled very carefully, always causes divisions. And Rome has shown that it is not good at handling changes for more than forty years.

 

One thing is certain, the Episcopalianizing of the Roman Church will be complete once you have married priests. The Roman Church of today will look just like the 1970s Episcopal Church right down to the option of the newer or older "rites" of its liturgy.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Why stop at married priests? Why not have married bishops? There have been married bishops in the Church's history. In fact, the father of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa was a married bishop. The East chose to have celibate bishop at the council in Trullo, but there is no logical reason why the Roman Church should be bound to that decision.

 

Postscript: I believe that St. Gregory of Nazianzus' father was also a bishop.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

and if we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs.  if we had some ham.

 

married bishops are a bad idea.  married priests in any way that does not strongly encourage celibate priests is a bad idea.  I have suggested various models in which I could see a celibate priesthood still being incentivized--either through strengthening of monastic centers, or the idea that only celibate priests would actually be salaried and live in the rectories/control the churches.

 

 

[Aloysius]

of course if we had some smells we could have smells and bells.  if we had some bells.

[Apotheoun]

Why are married bishops a bad idea? Eastern Orthodox have not ruled out that they could alter their discipline on ordaining married bishops. Moreover, there have even been married popes in the past. 

If the Roman Church is going to go for more change, why not go all the way?

[Apotheoun]

As a non-Roman Catholic I find it strange that the Roman Church does not appear to see any reason to keep practices that make it unique. In one sense this looks like it would be great for ecumenism, because it looks like Rome will change almost anything to make people happy, but in another sense it could signal the end of ecumenism, because those in dialogue with Rome will wonder if it stands for anything at all (i.e., beyond papal prerogatives, which to Orthodox Christians seem to be more about power and ecclesial politics than doctrine).

[Aloysius]

I know, seriously, right, if we're going to bother ordaining some married men, why not allow canine baptism?  every 'change' is pretty much the same thing, right, no chance we could consider taking lessons from the Eastern Orthodox Churches and model some ideas after their experiences and wisdom in the matter.

[Apotheoun]

I know, seriously, right, if we're going to bother ordaining some married men, why not allow canine baptism?  every 'change' is pretty much the same thing, right, no chance we could consider taking lessons from the Eastern Orthodox Churches and model some ideas after their experiences and wisdom in the matter.

But there is nothing inherent to the episcopal office that requires the ordination of celibate men, so you can ridicule my question all you want, but you have not supplied any reason for only consecrating celibates as bishops. If you argue that that practice is Traditional, the same can be said - for Roman Catholics - about ordaining only celibate men as priests. Tradition in the Roman Church does appear to be unraveling more and more.

[Aloysius]

:bounce: there are plenty of reasons for a celibate episcopacy, I've only hinted at the idea that it ensures the incentivization of celibacy in the priesthood which is of course biblically idealized by St. Paul, so any model in which there is no privilege to the celibate life is a completely bad idea... why don't you tell us why the Eastern Orthodox chose to have a celibate episcopacy?

[Apotheoun]

The majority of the apostles were married. So why not have married bishops?

[Apotheoun]

. . . why don't you tell us why the Eastern Orthodox chose to have a celibate episcopacy?

As I understand it . . . choosing bishops from the monasteries is simply a tradition. There is no detailed theology behind it. It is simply something that has been done in Orthodoxy from time immemorial (i.e., as far back as people can remember), which is probably one reason why the Orthodox will not change the practice.

[Aloysius]

all the Apostles were Jewish fishermen too, why don't we require all Apostles to be Jewish fishermen?

 

why not?  why don't you tell me why the Eastern Orthodox decided against a married episcopacy?

 

personally I also very much like the idea of bishops having to be formed within monastic settings, as I do feel we've been relatively damaged by careerist churchmen in high places over the centuries.  not that this would totally go away, but at least there would be some monastic discipline applied along the road.