Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[StMichael]

Appears to me that the Holy Spirit is telling Pope Francis a whole slew of things that seem to be leading to another council. Or everyone has lost their minds.

 

A Priest is to be devoted to God. A Priest is to act as a shepherd to God's flock. A Priest cannot do this in totality if he has a wife and kids. One of the reasons why this came to be was because men would become Priests and the bequeath the wealth of the parish to his family as well as many others.

[Aloysius]

I believe I have been quite misinterpreted, probably because I took what Atpeka was taking to be the exact opposite... ambiguous rumblings of criticism are confusing sometimes, it really looked to me like you were saying the Bishops should be endorsing innovations as "spirit inspired".  anyone who knows me knows I am very much against the versus populum position.  as some people on this thread don't seem to know me, it should suffice to point out that when I do attend the Roman Rite, it tends to be the Extraordinary Form.

 

the filioque example was just a way to point out the difference between different things that might be called "changes".  I'm not saying that it should be done, but I am saying that "oh no things have been so shifty in these decades that we can't do anything that changes anything that's been done in the last millenium" is not a valid model, and it's not at all the correct traditional response.

 

much of what everyone has said here I don't feel the need to respond to at all, as it is totally irrelevant to the issue, it's just a bunch of complaining about the current state of the Church which is pretty counterproductive and boring... it almost turned into one of those stupid picture threads of all the worst masses so we can all pile on our complaints, luckily we didn't get to the clown or puppet masses... totally irrelevant to the issue.  let's all be careful not to fall into C vs. C bickering, btw.

 

if you choose to associate the discipline of clerical celibacy with all of these other changes, that's your business, but it's going to just make things more difficult if the discipline of clerical celibacy is relaxed (something that is indeed quite possible under the papacy of Pope Francis, and to suggest otherwise is to be like those who thought something like Summorum Pontificum or the Anglican Ordinariate would never be possible)... it's not an Apostolic tradition, and there are plenty of good ecclesial models that include married priesthoods.  if you want to stick your feet in the mud and insist that the only way to revive tradition is to get everything back to pre-Vatican II 1950's status quo, well, enjoy your nice little niche subculture and I wish you well, but that's not going to be the way the Church recovers its traditions in my opinion.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

 

Phatmass is like a microcosm of the Church, many of the issues we talk about and effect us effect the whole of the Church, the divisions here are seen throughout the Church. This issue has caused division here and it is certain to cause division throughout the Church. Honestly I cannot believe you are being so intellectually dishonest about something that is clear. If there is a profound change (or whatever word you wish to use) to the celibacy of priests it will cause confusion and division within the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

I believe I have been quite misinterpreted, probably because I took what Atpeka was taking to be the exact opposite... ambiguous rumblings of criticism are confusing sometimes, it really looked to me like you were saying the Bishops should be endorsing innovations as "spirit inspired".  anyone who knows me knows I am very much against the versus populum position.  as some people on this thread don't seem to know me, it should suffice to point out that when I do attend the Roman Rite, it tends to be the Extraordinary Form.

 

the filioque example was just a way to point out the difference between different things that might be called "changes".  I'm not saying that it should be done, but I am saying that "oh no things have been so shifty in these decades that we can't do anything that changes anything that's been done in the last millenium" is not a valid model, and it's not at all the correct traditional response.

 

much of what everyone has said here I don't feel the need to respond to at all, as it is totally irrelevant to the issue, it's just a bunch of complaining about the current state of the Church which is pretty counterproductive and boring... it almost turned into one of those stupid picture threads of all the worst masses so we can all pile on our complaints, luckily we didn't get to the clown or puppet masses... totally irrelevant to the issue.  let's all be careful not to fall into C vs. C bickering, btw.

 

if you choose to associate the discipline of clerical celibacy with all of these other changes, that's your business, but it's going to just make things more difficult if the discipline of clerical celibacy is relaxed (something that is indeed quite possible under the papacy of Pope Francis, and to suggest otherwise is to be like those who thought something like Summorum Pontificum or the Anglican Ordinariate would never be possible)... it's not an Apostolic tradition, and there are plenty of good ecclesial models that include married priesthoods.  if you want to stick your feet in the mud and insist that the only way to revive tradition is to get everything back to pre-Vatican II 1950's status quo, well, enjoy your nice little niche subculture and I wish you well, but that's not going to be the way the Church recovers its traditions in my opinion.

 

Sounds like a copout to me and a easy way to dismiss and marginalize those whom you don't agree with.
 

[Aloysius]

I'd have pretty much zero sympathy for anyone who chose to sow division and confusion over the issue if the Vatican were to relax the discipline on clerical celibacy.  which is why I feel it is so deeply important that people understand the traditional dimensions of a potential married priesthood in case it were to be done.  what would you do if the Vatican were to relax the discipline?  would you be involved in any division or confusion?  would you disrespect anyone who was a married priest in the Roman Church?

 

it's not a copout, it's a refusal to discuss an unrelated issue.  we shouldn't do a because x, y, and z have happened since Vatican II... that's the real copout, when you take a discussion on priestly celibacy and start complaining about every liturgical grievance you have.

[KnightofChrist]

I'd have pretty much zero sympathy for anyone who chose to sow division and confusion over the issue if the Vatican were to relax the discipline on clerical celibacy.  which is why I feel it is so deeply important that people understand the traditional dimensions of a potential married priesthood in case it were to be done.  what would you do if the Vatican were to relax the discipline?  would you be involved in any division or confusion?  would you disrespect anyone who was a married priest in the Roman Church?

 
I would never disrespect a Priest. I simply pointed out that it is unreasonable for you to suggest it would not cause division within the Church, when it is clear that it would do just that. Just as it is doing here.
 

it's not a copout, it's a refusal to discuss an unrelated issue.  we shouldn't do a because x, y, and z have happened since Vatican II... that's the real copout, when you take a discussion on priestly celibacy and start complaining about every liturgical grievance you have.

I still think you're being a bit lazy and rude (aka snarky) by dismissing people and their arguments the way you did when they go to the trouble to respond to you without dismissing you out of hand or marginalizing you or your arguments. I believe as I stated earlier a comparison can be made between this potential change and those that came after the Second Vatican Council. I also believe the other points I brought up are worthy of a reply. But if you do not wish to show that respect then so be it. I say good day!

God Bless Edited September 12, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

I don't really have many disagreements with your post, though, not enough to respond to it, anyway... my comment wasn't directed at you in particular... I addressed the only aspect I have any serious disagreement over.

 

hope I haven't rustled anyone's jimmies too much.  :cyclops:

[KnightofChrist]

No worries.

[Norseman82]

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

 

 

Not ALL the apostles....St. Matthew was a tax coillector.

[havok579257]

Appears to me that the Holy Spirit is telling Pope Francis a whole slew of things that seem to be leading to another council. Or everyone has lost their minds.

A Priest is to be devoted to God. A Priest is to act as a shepherd to God's flock. A Priest cannot do this in totality if he has a wife and kids. One of the reasons why this came to be was because men would become Priests and the bequeath the wealth of the parish to his family as well as many others.

I would disagree since saint peter had a wife and I dont think you would say he didnt fullfuill his duties to the fullist. Also many priests in the past were married before the discipline was put in place and I doubt your saying those priest, some of them saints did not fullfill their duties to the fullist.

[PhuturePriest]

An informative link by Jimmy Akin on this interview that shows the Papal Nuncio wasn't advocating the revocation of Priestly celibacy one iota: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-pope-francis-about-to-eliminate-celibacy-9-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz2ejk2bAtK

[Apotheoun]

if you choose to associate the discipline of clerical celibacy with all of these other changes, that's your business, but it's going to just make things more difficult if the discipline of clerical celibacy is relaxed (something that is indeed quite possible under the papacy of Pope Francis, and to suggest otherwise is to be like those who thought something like Summorum Pontificum or the Anglican Ordinariate would never be possible)... it's not an Apostolic tradition, and there are plenty of good ecclesial models that include married priesthoods.  if you want to stick your feet in the mud and insist that the only way to revive tradition is to get everything back to pre-Vatican II 1950's status quo, well, enjoy your nice little niche subculture and I wish you well, but that's not going to be the way the Church recovers its traditions in my opinion.

I'm certainly not against married priesthood, but I do think that Rome has been changing things without good reasons for doing so, and changing the discipline of priestly celibacy at this point in time (i.e., in hyper-sexualized Western societies) does not seem wise. As far as the Anglican practice of married clergy is concerned, it is a Protestant innovation, because there is no sense within the Anglican communion (or by extension - at least to my knowledge) or within the Anglican Ordinariate that liturgical continence is required of married priests (and deacons). I hear nothing about the marital fast among Anglicans, and I actually doubt that many of them have even heard of the practice. I hope Rome does not adopt the Anglican approach as its own. By the way, the constant references to the 1950s are non-sensical, because I do not think that anyone is idolizing that period in Roman Catholic history (at least I am not).

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

A bit of speculation makes me think that the current Anglican ordinariate situation of married clergy is a minor quirk of the whole arrangement, which will quietly die out with this current first generation of former Anglican clergy. They may keep a rite with Anglo-Catholic features and they may build new churches in a rather nice Anglican style, but I doubt that new clergy will be permitted to marry.

[KnightofChrist]

By the way, the constant references to the 1950s are non-sensical, because I do not think that anyone is idolizing that period in Roman Catholic history (at least I am not).

 

Growing up I can remember protestants using very similar references to dismiss Catholics and our traditions. Only it was the middle ages and not the 1950's, and our tradition and our love for it was said to be like the Pharisees love for the Law of Moses.

 

When I came back into the Church after 9/11/01 and began to become more traditionally minded I noticed very quickly non-traditionally minded Catholics using the very same lazy arguments against traditional Catholics. Anyway I still say it's a lazy and somewhat uncharitable way to marginalize, discredit and dismiss people one does not agree with.

Edited September 13, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

referencing the 1950's was a way to distinguish between some ambiguous idea of "stability" and the idea of "tradition"... for example, delatinizing Eastern Catholic Churches is a change in many cases to latinized practices that were centuries old, but it was entirely traditional unless you want to stabilize the Eastern Catholic Churches into their early twentieth century forms...

 

I'm sorry if you don't like my example.  suggesting it's 'uncharitable' the way I was using it is utterly ridiculous, though.  it seems many jimmies have been rustled in this thread.