Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Apotheoun]

The Council in Trullo does not require that bishops be celibate, but it does say that a married bishop should be continent after his consecration.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

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.

So marriage and ethnicity are equivalent?

 

As I said in my previous post, Orthodoxy did not officially decide against ordaining married men as bishops (as the canons from Quinsext make clear), but the tradition of choosing men from monasteries arose, and has been respected for generations. Perhaps that was done because it seemed strange to require that a man's wife enter a convent upon his consecration as a bishop.

 

As I said, the Orthodox have not tried to create an elaborate theology to justify their present practice. It is simply done because it is traditional to do so.

[Apotheoun]

Why do Orthodox Christians cross themselves during the liturgy? Why do they make lesser or greater metanias during the liturgy? Why do they venerate icons? 

 

The answer to all these questions is the same . . . they do these things because it is traditional to do them.

 

Why do Catholics do certain things during the liturgy?  

 

Because it is prescribed by the GIRM.

[Apteka]

Interesting discussion. It's rather peculiar that a non-Roman is defending the ancient Latin practice of clerical celibacy. From my perspective, and admittedly I am a nobody, I would say the hierarchs of the Roman Church have basically apostatized. It's not possible that they actually believe the Church they are in to be the true one, that the very hand of God has guided it through the centuries. If they really did believe this, they would see the evolution of their liturgy as something spirit inspired rather than the corruption of man. Strangely it appears the majority of lay Romans continue on as if everything is ok, like nothing has really happened. If you ask me, they're like sheep being herded and led to slaughter. Rome should be more concerned that the majority of her members practice contraception and don't believe in the real presence, rather than attempting to loosen age old disciplines such as clerical celibacy, but God has given Rome the leaders she deserves, and so her fate is sealed.  

[havok579257]

Interesting discussion. It's rather peculiar that a non-Roman is defending the ancient Latin practice of clerical celibacy. From my perspective, and admittedly I am a nobody, I would say the hierarchs of the Roman Church have basically apostatized. It's not possible that they actually believe the Church they are in to be the true one, that the very hand of God has guided it through the centuries. If they really did believe this, they would see the evolution of their liturgy as something spirit inspired rather than the corruption of man. Strangely it appears the majority of lay Romans continue on as if everything is ok, like nothing has really happened. If you ask me, they're like sheep being herded and led to slaughter. Rome should be more concerned that the majority of her members practice contraception and don't believe in the real presence, rather than attempting to loosen age old disciplines such as clerical celibacy, but God has given Rome the leaders she deserves, and so her fate is sealed.  

 

 

Oh its always entertaining when someone new comes along and says all the same things we have heard before and they think they are original ideas.

[Aloysius]

not quite sure what you're saying there Apteka, is Rome supposed to think all the abberations from the apostolic spirit of the liturgy are 'spirit inspired' just because they're happening?  that's totally ridiculous, just because something is happening in a widespread way doesn't mean it's "spirit inspired"... arianism is a good example.  of course with your previous evasiveness to being "labelled" and vague condemnations of Church leaders, I remain rather uncertain of what it is exactly you're trying to say.... but the leaders of the Church obviously feel that they are the successors to the Apostles who met in rooms in the Temple in Jerusalem before the Jews expelled them to draft the first liturgies, and thus feel they must safeguard them and pass on what they have received.

 

of course, all of this liturgical stuff still feels rather irrelevant to the topic, unless of course anything that you can point to as a 'change' is basically exactly the same thing and refuse to look at each instance for its own sake and evaluate it uniquely, which is the concept I ridiculed earlier in this thread with canine baptisms and jewish fishing bishops.  when it comes to liturgy, we could have good or bad liturgy with a married priesthood... and actually, in some ways, many bishops who might otherwise want to rein in liturgical abuses do not do so because of the pressure of low vocations, so there could be some liturgical upsides to a married priesthood in the places where there are liturgically traditional bishops.

[KnightofChrist]

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

They are fishermen of men, that tradition and symbolism hasn't be thrown away, yet. And they are Catholic and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the faith of Abraham, Issac, Moses, etc etc, who were Jewish. So yes in a very big and tradition way Bishops are Jewish Fishermen like the Apostles. Edited September 12, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

:D of course, my point in my little snarky responses (for which I hope Apo didn't take any offense) was that all "change" isn't equivalent.  if the Pope or a council or a synod were to remove the filioque, for instance, you couldn't say that's just like when the concilium pushed through the liturgical reform, or when the versus populum position started.  all "change" does not equal innovation; and though we should of course reject antiquarianism that suggests we definitely should return to practices exactly as they were done at some time in the ancient church, there is nothing wrong with the Western Church learning from the first millenium Church, or from the Eastern Churches, and modeling some ways forward as means of restoring traditions even as they sometimes discard later traditions.  from Apo's position, it almost seems as if since we have been locked into mandatory celibacy for a millenium and therefore we're stuck with it forever else we risk destabilization.

 

the clerical discipline must always find a way to promote celibacy as the expression of the "eunuchs of the Kingdom of God" described in the scriptures, and I have suggested some ways I could see that being done if a married priesthood were to be brought in (the connection between monasteries and the episcopacy is one that I think would be highly beneficial to the Church).  that's the consideration I'm most concerned about... because any restoration of tradition where it has seemed to have been ruptured from will inherently not take the form of any kind of status quo stablization IMO, it will only take root if it's done in refreshing and revitalizing ways... any kind of widespread attempt to restore the 1950's will not, I think, take too strong a root... though the extraordinary rite is of course an essential aspect of the way forward.  of course I'm not suggesting allowing a married priesthood is some kind of fix, but I do think openness towards such a possibility is entirely within the realm of possibilities for those of us seeking to restore tradition in many aspects.

 

if I were in a position to make the decision, though, I'd of course be extremely wary of moving in that direction.  I imagine if the Vatican does decide to permit a married priesthood, though, as is entirely possible, many people here will find the perspectives I've been suggesting very useful.

[Apteka]

not quite sure what you're saying there Apteka, is Rome supposed to think all the abberations from the apostolic spirit of the liturgy are 'spirit inspired' just because they're happening?  that's totally ridiculous, just because something is happening in a widespread way doesn't mean it's "spirit inspired"... arianism is a good example.  of course with your previous evasiveness to being "labelled" and vague condemnations of Church leaders, I remain rather uncertain of what it is exactly you're trying to say.... but the leaders of the Church obviously feel that they are the successors to the Apostles who met in rooms in the Temple in Jerusalem before the Jews expelled them to draft the first liturgies, and thus feel they must safeguard them and pass on what they have received.

 

What exactly do you consider an aberration, Aloysius? Would conducting the liturgy facing East, praying the Canon silently, or avoiding the vernacular be considered aberrations? I ask because these practices were all confirmed by the Council of Trent and all of them removed since the Second Vatican Council. Which Council do you believe was led by the Holy Spirit?

 

of course, all of this liturgical stuff still feels rather irrelevant to the topic, unless of course anything that you can point to as a 'change' is basically exactly the same thing and refuse to look at each instance for its own sake and evaluate it uniquely, which is the concept I ridiculed earlier in this thread with canine baptisms and jewish fishing bishops.  when it comes to liturgy, we could have good or bad liturgy with a married priesthood... and actually, in some ways, many bishops who might otherwise want to rein in liturgical abuses do not do so because of the pressure of low vocations, so there could be some liturgical upsides to a married priesthood in the places where there are liturgically traditional bishops.

 

 

In time, Rome will permit everything.

[Apteka]

:D of course, my point in my little snarky responses (for which I hope Apo didn't take any offense) was that all "change" isn't equivalent.  if the Pope or a council or a synod were to remove the filioque, for instance, you couldn't say that's just like when the concilium pushed through the liturgical reform, or when the versus populum position started.  all "change" does not equal innovation; and though we should of course reject antiquarianism that suggests we definitely should return to practices exactly as they were done at some time in the ancient church, there is nothing wrong with the Western Church learning from the first millenium Church, or from the Eastern Churches, and modeling some ways forward as means of restoring traditions even as they sometimes discard later traditions.  from Apo's position, it almost seems as if since we have been locked into mandatory celibacy for a millenium and therefore we're stuck with it forever else we risk destabilization.

 

It is rather ironic that the very things Pope Pius XII outlined as antiquarian would alter be adopted after the Second Vatican Council. If Rome can learn anything form the East its to remain firm in tradition.

[PhuturePriest]

In time, Rome will permit everything.

 

Will it permit murder so I can get rid of the annoying people in my life?
 

[PhuturePriest]

At the end of the day, guys, there's no way they are taking away Priestly celibacy. It's a trivial issue when there are tons of actual issues. Let's start teaching people about the Real Presence and explaining to them doctrines and beliefs of the Church. After those 75% of Catholics in America who don't go to Mass start going to Mass again, we'll talk about celibacy.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[PhuturePriest]

This attitude is precisely why the seminary I attended ruined so many good men. A few, somehow, only by the grace of God, have managed to become good priests in spite of this attitude that priests ought to be isolated from society, isolated from families, and isolated from the very people they are being called to serve.

 

I am not talking about some appearance of isolation. To be celibate without being isolated is not something people can just do without training, and I for one count the Church in the US as being flagrantly irresponsible for doing so little about it. If some folks in the Vatican think opening this question might fix this problem, I say by all means, let it be tried. Plenty of other things have been tried, I can assure you.

 

The only other man who I've ever seen complain about the formation of seminaries (And rightly so) as much as you do is Michael Voris. Just thought I'd share that with you. :P

[Apteka]

At the end of the day, guys, there's no way they are taking away Priestly celibacy. It's a trivial issue when there are tons of actual issues. Let's start teaching people about the Real Presence and explaining to them doctrines and beliefs of the Church. After those 75% of Catholics in America who don't go to Mass start going to Mass again, we'll talk about celibacy.

 

I wonder whether the rampant disbelief in the Transubstantiation or use of contraception will make its way to the USCCB's annual meeting this year.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Apteka

[PhuturePriest]

I wonder whether the rampant disbelief in the Transubstantiation or use of contraception will make its way to the USCCB's annual meeting this year.

 

If they don't, they will again be turning a blind eye to two very big issues.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FuturePriest387