Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[KnightofChrist]

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.

No one was talking about wanting going back to the 1950's other than yourself, you alone brought that irrelevant topic into this discussion. It didn't cause me any grief. Pointing out that your reference is often used to dismiss and marginalize traditionally minded Catholics as old fuddy-duddies is not to say I've got my jimmies rustled (which I'm afraid is just another way to dismiss and marginalize. It's easy to dismiss those old fuddy duddies as just upset/mad/angry that they can go back to the '50's). I only objected to it because it is a lazy and somewhat rude way to dismiss people with whom you don't agree. No one here actually wants to go back to the '50's and no one advocated it so again it was completely irrelevant and a little rude to apply it to us or whomever you were talking about (Apo?).

I'll not be responding anymore to this particular topic as I see it has no purpose. I thought objecting to it may have encouraged you to drop the charge but you don't want to so it's not worth further discussion.

[Apotheoun]

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.

The Eastern Orthodox would love your posts, because they hold that Rome has been corrupting the faith for centuries (i.e. going all the way back to - and even before - the great schism). Rome - from an Orthodox perspective - has always been changing things, while Orthodoxy holds to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, an immutable faith (i.e., an experience of God's life and glory) that does not accept notions of "doctrinal development" or the need to have a "magisterium" that is constantly issuing new innovative liturgical directives. Orthodox simply do what has always been done in the Church, and each generation is charged with passing down the practice of the faith unaltered.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

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.

Were the 1950s changeless? I thought that Pius XII made major changes to the Paschal Vigil, and that he also shortened the Eucharistic fast, which had been from midnight until the reception of communion at morning Mass, to only three hours, and didn't he also define a new dogma, which - like most changes made by Rome - caused new ecumenical problems? I thought that quite a few changes to Roman Catholic practice took place in the 1950s, albeit minor in comparison to those that took place after Vatican II, when the Roman Church abandoned its historic liturgy for one created by a group of scholars, but changes all the same.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[arfink]

Ah yes, the age old battle of whether to change anything at all, unless of course the suggestion is to change it back.

[Aloysius]

I don't think I accused anyone of wanting to return to the 1950's, I used it as an example to illustrate the difference between stability, which is the crux of "everything is in flux so let's not do anything unless it calms down" and tradition.  and yes of course things changed in the 1950's, most notably the Holy Week rites that Bugnini had his hands in already at that time.

 

[attachment=3199:jimmies.jpg]

 

 

[Apotheoun]

But - as I pointed out - there were changes in the 1950s. Rome seems to like making changes, and many of the popes seem to believe that they are empowered to alter the liturgy (and other disciplines) at will, which is a notion that the Eastern Orthodox reject. Hierarchs in Orthodoxy are not empowered to change the Church's practices at will; instead, they are seen - along with the lay faithful - as guardians of Tradition. 

[Apotheoun]

I do find it interesting that debates today between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox look a lot like debates from 30 or 40 years ago between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

[Aloysius]

pretty much not true at all but thanks for playing.  if you insist upon framing this as all changes are equivalent, that's your business... but of course the Eastern Orthodox could have synods to change the disciplines surrounding clerical celibacy (ie to decide to make it mandatory if they wished) and it wouldn't be at all equivalent to them changing the liturgy.

 

are you trying to argue with me that popes shouldn't have unilateral power to alter the liturgy?  if so that's a valid argument to make, but it's not the argument we're having right now.

[Apotheoun]

pretty much not true at all but thanks for playing.  if you insist upon framing this as all changes are equivalent, that's your business... but of course the Eastern Orthodox could have synods to change the disciplines surrounding clerical celibacy (ie to decide to make it mandatory if they wished) and it wouldn't be at all equivalent to them changing the liturgy.

 

are you trying to argue with me that popes shouldn't have unilateral power to alter the liturgy?  if so that's a valid argument to make, but it's not the argument we're having right now.

Al, you have to admit that Rome is constantly changing things. What is tradition for the Roman Church? It certainly is not the liturgy, nor is it disciplines, I guess tradition is simply certain theological formulas, but even those can develop according to modern Roman Catholic teaching. So what is tradition? Orthodox Christians see the whole practice of the faith as Tradition, as something that is given to the Church by the Lord Himself, and not as something created by the hierarchy. 

 

As far as the idea of popes not having unilateral power to alter the liturgy is concerned, I thought that was evident. No one man should be able to alter the Church's prayer life. If you change the prayers of the Church you change her faith. That is the historic understanding of the matter at hand. Have the changes made by the popes over the course of the last forty years made the Church stronger and more peaceful? Or have they simply divided Catholics from each other?

 

Now as far as the argument we are having at the present time is concerned, we are arguing about that (i.e., the power to change the liturgy and everything that flows from it), because from an Eastern Christian perspective priestly discipline is intimately connected to the liturgy. Perhaps it is just another sign of the decay in the modern Roman Church that everything is seen as standing in isolation, but that viewpoint does not represent the patristic tradition where everything was seen as holistically connected. After all the word catholic itself concerns the whole, so is it any wonder that Orthodox are often mystified by the Protestant approach to the faith taken by the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

:bounce:  :sos: I'm not talking about those changes that have occurred, only the proposed change being considered, I've proposed various models under which a change to the discipline of priestly celibacy might prove beneficial (not actually endorsed such a change, mind you), all of which are ways that would still promote celibacy which I feel is necessary.  this isn't a matter of isolating one thing from another, it's a matter of evaluating one particular idea on its own merits.  the crux of your argument hasn't been (or seemed to me) that a married priesthood discipline would affect the liturgy in negative ways because of the intimate connection between priestly discipline and the liturgy, but that that change is the same thing as any other change and would be detrimental because it's a change.

 

as for what makes Rome distinct, well, I think the Roman Church doesn't have the same hangup of wanting to be 'unique' as the localized Orthodox Churches have had.  the Roman Church generally doesn't have anything against easternizing if it were beneficial to the spiritual lives of its members, so long as it maintains connections with the Apostolic traditions (or at least ideally it would add the caveat of retaining connections to Apostolic traditions).

[Aloysius]

anyway, I would certainly thing there should be a general synod of the Roman Church to determine this if they did want to alter mandatory priestly celibacy, I'd be with you on that point, I wouldn't want the Pope just unilaterally doing it... though if he did I'd accept it and promote all the models of understanding it that I was discussing in this thread.

[Apotheoun]

:bounce:  :sos: I'm not talking about those changes that have occurred, only the proposed change being considered, I've proposed various models under which a change to the discipline of priestly celibacy might prove beneficial (not actually endorsed such a change, mind you), all of which are ways that would still promote celibacy which I feel is necessary.  this isn't a matter of isolating one thing from another, it's a matter of evaluating one particular idea on its own merits.  the crux of your argument hasn't been (or seemed to me) that a married priesthood discipline would affect the liturgy in negative ways because of the intimate connection between priestly discipline and the liturgy, but that that change is the same thing as any other change and would be detrimental because it's a change.

 

as for what makes Rome distinct, well, I think the Roman Church doesn't have the same hangup of wanting to be 'unique' as the localized Orthodox Churches have had.  the Roman Church generally doesn't have anything against easternizing if it were beneficial to the spiritual lives of its members, so long as it maintains connections with the Apostolic traditions (or at least ideally it would add the caveat of retaining connections to Apostolic traditions).

Yes, I know that you are - like a modernist - isolating priestly discipline from the liturgy, but that approach is not possible for Eastern Christians, because we see the whole faith as contained in the liturgy (both kerygma and dogma). Our approaches are different, mine is patristic in nature, while yours is Protestant.

 

Priestly celibacy (a Western practice) and liturgical continence (an Eastern practice) are an intimate part of the liturgy. What I fear the West will do, which it has been doing for some time now, is change a discipline without understanding how it will impact the liturgy. As I asked before, and by the way a question you never answered, are Roman Catholics willing to forego the practice of daily Mass? Eastern Orthodoxy does not have daily Eucharistic liturgies because that would require that priests maintain perfect continence. Is Rome going to follow the ancient practice or just make up a new one to suit its present views in a Protestant fashion? Another question to ask is: why change this discipline? What is the reason for doing so? Is it just to change for the sake of change? Or is there some pressing reason to change this ancient Western practice?

 

Perhaps you have reasons for the change, but do those reasons coordinate with the historic views of the Roman Church? It is interesting that the Roman Church no longer seems to care about maintaining its own unique customs? Why is that?

 

Orthodox see their tradition as God inspired, and so they refuse to change it to suit any particular group or non-Orthodox mindset. Why is Rome so willing to change? Is it maybe because Rome doesn't see its liturgical tradition as important any more?

 

Just some questions to ponder.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

again, I am not isolating the issue from the liturgy, I am isolating it from historical questions about the last 50 years as those things are, indeed, different questions.  of course everything is intimately related, I never suggested otherwise, the only things I've contradicted you on is the idea that all 'changes' are the same, as I suggest taking each particular change as a question on its own merits (including of course, its liturgical merits, but that doesn't mean "married priests will remove all sacred images and altar rails and give you communion in a paper cup")  if you could kindly stop wildly accusing me of modernism and protestantism, I'd really appreciate it, I haven't even said I support changing the practice of celibacy, only mused about the possibilities of how to view it if it happened.

 

you have asked good questions.  of course the model I suggested about celibate priests still retaining control of the Church with a supplemental and perhaps unpaid (or barely paid) priesthood would maintain the possibility for daily mass with the practice of continence.  the model where monasteries would be stronger would inevitably end up with less daily mass unless there was a serious push for celibate priests alongside it, perhaps insisting that all pastors at least be celibate.

[Apotheoun]

Get rid of priestly celibacy, because that is a real problem in the Roman Church, but ignore liturgies like the one below:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV_WrM1V5C8&t=7m35s

 

Skip to 7 minutes 35 seconds for the real fun.

[Aloysius]

remember on this thread where our clash started, you asked me if that is the way it would be done, and I of course admitted the models I was describing were pipe dreams... but they're also important considerations for how we should approach it if the Roman Church did go in that direction.