Your Assement - Married Priests .... When?

[Lil Red]

he he that would be amesome

dancing banana gif not put in becuase that would be too much

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yes and quite frankly both a celibate and a married clergy have their benefits and it is for this reason that both are allowed in the Universal Church. It is not wise to defend one discipline of the Church by downplaying another, it makes her look schizophrenic.

A married clergy is a privation. If the ideal was not a celibate clergy the Church would not have the discipline to begin with, who wouldn't want to be married. God calls men to be celibate. From the very beginning the ideal of celibacy was in the Church. St. Paul remained celibate, the apostles who were unmarried remained that way. And these were men who came from a culture where marrying and having a family was more much important than it is to our culture. It's obviously a part of the priesthood that should not be taken lightly. You want to stress the fact that the Church has the authority to change it, fine, but I want to stress the fact that it's there for a reason, not just pragmatic reasons or superficial reasons, but essential Theological reasons that do not become obsolete when times change. I know that the Church will never do away with celibacy because that would be against the traditions that have been handed on. I might even propose that celibacy in the priesthood has two doctrinal dimension and is thus more than a discipline. The formal requirement of celibacy is a discipline (meaning how the Church regulates celibacy, when it makes exceptions, etc), but the connection between celibacy and the priesthood is a part of Sacred Tradition and cannot be disolved. So if there were no celibate priests the full meaning of Holy Orders would not be lived out in the Church, I do not think this can happen. Your point about authority is the same type of approach people were taking for the possibility of the ordination of women until the Holy Father said that the Church "does not have the authority to change that", but to them it was just a "discipline".

See Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 7:32-35

And it doesn't make the Church look "schizophrenic" to put a celibate priesthood above a married. In fact in Familiaris Consortio the Pope explicitly talks about "the superiority of the charism of celibacy", "because of it's singular link to the kingdom of God". So there.

Edited January 23, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Winchester]

And you explain the decision of other Rites how?

[hyperdulia again]

Except for the fact that women priests is a doctrinal matter nad no matter how hard you try to make it one a celibate clergy is not. Marriage and Holy Orders are both tremendous sources of grace. The East has not suffered because its clergy is married and I find the Romanism of your posts (confusing Roman Discipline with Catholic Doctrine) disturbing. I'm not posting on this thread anymore, because doing so will greatly hamper my ability to moderate it.

[Dave]

Right now, 15% of all parishes are without a priest and they predict that 25% will in two decades given the retirement of active ones.

According to the book "Call to Action or Call to Apostasy" by Brian Clowes, published in 1997,

-- 87.59% of all American parishes have resident diocesan or religious priests.

-- 10.39% are covered by priests from nearby parishes, meaning that a total of 97.98% of all parishes are covered by a resident or non-resident priest.

-- Only 1.95% are administered by permanent deacons, men or women religious, lay people, or pastoral teams.

-- Exactly 13 parishes in the U.S. (.07%) of the total have no priest or administrator whatsoever, and most of them are in a brief transition period between one pastor and the next.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And you explain the decision of other Rites how?

The same way I explain the Anglican privledge in our rite. Celibacy is an essential part of the Priesthood, but it doesn't exclude married men from being ordained in some cases. The priesthood can be mixed. And it seems like some people think the Eastern Churches are a bunch of married priests. Their Theology teaches the necessity of a celibate clergy and the superiority of celibacy as does ours. A married priest in the East (which is not as wide spread as you seem to think) cannot advance in the Hierarchy and is seen very different. My point is not that a married priest is not possible, or even theoreticall a married Bishop (though no Church today allows this that I'm aware or), celibacy has been and always will be an essential part of the priesthood and can't be taken away. The first "clergy" in the Apostolic age were mixed (married and celibate) and Paul teaches that the celibate way is superior. Christ said there will be those who make themselves Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, that is interpreted as applying first to the clergy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Except for the fact that women priests is a doctrinal matter nad no matter how hard you try to make it one a celibate clergy is not. Marriage and Holy Orders are both tremendous sources of grace. The East has not suffered because its clergy is married and I find the Romanism of your posts (confusing Roman Discipline with Catholic Doctrine) disturbing. I'm not posting on this thread anymore, because doing so will greatly hamper my ability to moderate it.

First off, woman priests was disputed, even by current Cardinals, as being a discipline only, it wasn't clear cut before the Pope's fairly recent statement.

Second, celibate priests is a discipline, but it's more because it's been a constant practice in the Church, though the disciplinary aspect has taken different forms (eg., East & West). You obviously don't know enough about the East to talk about it because they are not what you think. I know plenty of Eastern Catholics and they seem to value celibacy more than most Romans I know. My only point is that celibacy in the priesthood will never go away! It exists in the East and West and always has. It may change, and probably will. Maybe the West will have more married priests (I know a very good married priest who is vehemently against widespread married priests), I don't know, that's up to the Church. But abolishing celibacy in the Priesthood would break the Church's constant Tradition and won't happen.

[hyperdulia again]

I AM in the process of becoming a Melkite. I am also one of the rudest and most combative people hhere so I'm trying really hard right now to be nice. Help me be nice please.

The prevelance of non-Monastic celibate clergy was never the norm in the East, Catholic or Orthodox, until the Latinizations of the late nineteenth century. Orienntale Lumen and Dignatis Orientalis (Sp? conjugation?).

How much eastern Catholic theology have you actually read, not Romans or Romannizers talking about the East, but the universal Church talking to the East and the Eastern Church talking to herself? Celibacy has been viewed in the East as an obstacle to regular pastoral work ( a view I don't assent to). The tradition of a married lower clergy in the East is one that Eastern Catholics have fought to the death to preserve, the Maronnites (without officially severing ties with Rome) even went and hid in the mountains of Lebanon for a century and were thought to have died out solely to prevent this happening. As late as the nineteenth Century there married ABBOTs on mount Athos and Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Catholics had married Bishops. This is the Church's discipline please do not make her say more than she has said.

[hyperdulia again]

Have you had any formal instruction in theology? The theology of the whole Church, not just the theological expression of the Roman Church?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Have you had any formal instruction in theology? The theology of the whole Church, not just the theological expression of the Roman Church?

How rude! And if you must know, yes.

The prevelance of non-Monastic celibate clergy was never the norm in the East, Catholic or Orthodox, until the Latinizations of the late nineteenth century

That's totally false!

Since my previous pasts were mainly about the priesthood in general and according to the traditions of the West lets operate with some distinction. First the distinction between secular clergy and the monastic clergy. Second let's keep in mind that the East's traditions are the Easts and you can't judge the West on those terms, and vice versa.

There have been times where the married secular clergy in the East were a minority, there were even a couple of centuries in the pastristic era where celibacy was mandatory in the East for secular clergy! And don't get me started on the West, a celibate secular clergy has been a special charism in the West for ages of ages. Celibacy in the East is utterly esteemed, it's almost inexpressible. I'm thinking primarily of the Philokalia, Nyssa's treatise on virginity, Chrysostom.. Dang, it's an undeniable part of your tradition. Granted celibacy for the secular clergy is not the norm it has always existed and is highly esteemed. A celibate priest is the superior of a married priest. The Bishops always some from the celibate monastics.

Married secular clergy is a part of the tradition of the East that they should be faithful to so remember that the original issue was the Roman Church. The Roman Church's tradition is a celibate clergy. I know if you read western sources it is called a "discipline" and in it's juridical aspect this is true. The Church could theoretically permit married priests and even married Bishops (St. Peter was married for crying out loud). But this doesn't take away from the fact that celibacy is a tradition in the Church from the beginning. According to the fathers it is a tradition that came from Christ through the Apostles so it's not something that will ever go away. That's my point from before, the Church will never abolish celibacy in the priesthood (secular & monastic). For the West: the Sacramental priesthood is a sign of the kingdom of God on earth and the fullness of this sign is when the priest is more configured to Christ through celibacy, the "undivided heart", as Christ was celibate. For the East: the heart of prayer is the treasure of celibacy and the celibate clergy (monastic) will always be the higher form of the priesthood, the most eschatologically advanced state.

In the west the undivided heart aspect and the being more like Christ who was celibate has a dimension of giving oneself totally for the service of the flock like Christ the good shepherd, it is linked with the identity of the secular priest. In the east the preeminence of celibacy is linked more with the interior life and spiritual perfection and withdrawing from the vanities of the world. The ancient cyclical concept of time and life's cycles of birth and death are broken by the celibate who is a sign of the world to come.

In sum, the Church has the authority to modify it's discipline of celibacy (ie., regarding whether priests can marry, under what conditions, etc.) But it's safe to say that the Church will never abolish celibacy for the priesthood because the two have been linked from the beginning, though admitedly in different ways in the different traditions.

Also worth noting: when the Moscow Patriarchate tries to abolish celibacy for the secular clergy it was a disaster, you had priests who lived as brother and sister with there wives and never had sex, etc. It didn't last because it wasn't faithful to their tradition, it was based on an attempt to change the relationship between celibacy and the priesthood.

Also the "disciplines" in the East regarding married priests point toward the ideal of celibacy. The priests are not to have sex during fast periods (of which there are many), and they are not to have sex the night before Divine Liturgy, etc. It is clear from their theology that celibacy is the ideal state for a priest (in the general sense), although their tradition is that a non-monastic priest should generally be married, it's not in any way looked down upon or seen as a negative thing. It's normal, celibacy is extraordinary and revered. Nonetheless it is a constant part of the One Faith that will never disappear.

[hyperdulia again]

Is there a part of that incredibly rude patronising post that you expect me to respond to. Never, not once have I suggested that Celibacy should be abandoned. Never not once have I suggested that that abandonment is likely.

I have said and I reiterate, the Church allows her priests to marry, she does not censure them or suggest that they are somehow doing something that is less a part of Tradition, less trying, or less holy.

I reject most of your statements about the Eastern Church. Particularly regarding fasts, etc. In the east all people are asked to abstain from sex (if possible) during fasts [which constitute more than half of the year]. Celibacy is honored. Married Clergy is honored. Full Stop.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Is there a part of that incredibly rude patronising post that you expect me to respond to. Never, not once have I suggested that Celibacy should be abandoned. Never not once have I suggested that that abandonment is likely.

Well, that wasn't my itention, sorry.

If you remember, you misunderstood and challenged my assertion that Rome cannot abandon celibacy for the priesthood. That is what has led to this.

I'm sure most of this conversation has been a series of miscommunications.

I'd like to know what statements of mine about the East you reject? I am prone to hyperbole at times but I don't think I was that bad in my last post.

To reiterate my views, mandatory celibacy for the clergy is the discipline of the Roman Church. It is a tradition in the west too since very soon after the Apostolic Age Rome was selecting it's priests from among the celibate and widowed. The Pope could theoretically change this discipline and allow married priests if he felt like it.

The East has celibate monastic clergy and celibate Bishops. The East (based on their tradition) encourages secular priests to marry but it is not mandatory and there are celibate secular priests who are revered. Despite this encouragement a celibate priest is seen as a more perfect living of the priesthood but since celibacy is so linked with monasticism and marriage is seen as "being in the world", priests who are in the world generally marry. For the East to require celibacy would be seen as against tradition as is the case with latinized churches.

It would seem that for the West to stop mandating celibacy would also be against it's traditions. But since celibacy is a discipline, it is a tradition that Rome has the authority to change if it really wanted to.

The point about celibacy never going away was a different kind of point, which is where I think the misunderstanding comes from.

Celibacy, not as a discipline, but as an aspect of the Church from the very beginning (Christ Himself being celibate and many of the first Christians became "eunuchs for the Kingdom"), is linked with the priesthood in a special way, this is acknowledged by the Fathers, East and West.

Therefore I conclude, that since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, celibacy will always be with us and celibate priests will always be with us, though the Church may have different disciplines and traditions about celibacy. So I suppose you could say I hold that the Church cannot abolish celibacy. This was in response to you trying to reduce celibacy to nothing more than an arbitrary discipline as if the Church just made it up one day. My view is that in itself it's a part of tradition but the specific practices of it are mere disciplines. The Church wouldn't be faithful to what Christ left the Church through the Apostles without it.

In the east all people are asked to abstain from sex (if possible) during fasts [which constitute more than half of the year].

And you are becoming Eastern?? Kidding. But seriously, I had heard otherwise from my Ukrainian Catholic roommate. Are you sure these are the current practices for everyone? Is that in the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches? I apologize if I was mistaken on that point, not all of us Romans are infallible, but my overall statement doesn't fall on that point alone.

Edited January 24, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

hyperdulia - I wasn't trying to be rude or patronising, I was just trying to be very clear since communication has been pretty rough on this thread.

[Aloysius]

i think it should stay exactly the way it is now, allowed in the East not allowed in the West. yay. there's nothing wrong with the way it is now. stop the "what-ifs"

IT COULD CHANGE, don't speculate whether or not it will, just know that celibacy is not a required part of the nature of the priesthood. celibate priesthood is the best discipline for the Roman Rite. the other rites have the right to decide what the best discipline is for them on this matter. why do they have the right? THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH AS A WHOLE SAYS SO

so, settling it once and for all, if the Roman Rite decided with the Pope's approval that the priesthood could be a married priesthood in the Roman Rite, yay, that's what the Church considers the best discipline for the Roman Rite. IF an Eastern Rite decided with the Pope's approval that the priesthood must be celibate in that specific rite, yay, that's what the Church considers the best discipline for that particular rite.

you two just had a pointless argument.

now, as to my opinion AS A LAYPERSON WHO REALLY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE MATTER, i like the required discipline of celibacy because the person is less distracted from the ministry by like a nagging wife. also, in my opinion as a layperson, i like the optional celibacy in the eastern rites because their cultures developed around them and it is good for their parishes to be centered around a priest and his family. yet, if it changed, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. if it never changes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. the end

[Laudate_Dominum]

Ok, I agree with Al. Phew! Is it over? :wacko: