Your Assement - Married Priests .... When?

[hyperdulia again]

No, 'cause I don't see a difference between what I said and what Aloysius said.

[Aloysius]

it was miscommunication. it's cleared up now

you thought he was overemphasizing celibacy, he thought you were overemphasizing married priesthood. you were taking it as if he wanted to impose celibacy on the east, he was taking it as if you wanted to make the west have married priests. it just needed to be emphasized that it COULD CHANGE, and some opinions say it should some say it shouldn't. but it's not our decision and whatever is best for the specific rite will be set in place.

it's all hunky dory now though, you both think it shouldn't be changed but would not be scandalized if it did change. the end. yay! :D

[Mateo el Feo]

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.

Just a small correction: the Catholic Church does not allow Her priests to marry. She allows married men (primarily in the Eastern rites) to become priests.

God bless!

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks Mateo.

hyperdulia, if you really want to pursue this I will, but it's not fun.

[Aloysius]

ust a small correction: the Catholic Church does not allow Her priests to marry. She allows married men (primarily in the Eastern rites) to become priests.

God bless!

ah yes, this is true :cool:

Edited January 24, 2004 by Aloysius

[hyperdulia again]

Laudate, thank God you can't bind anyone by your private interpretation of what is doctrinal and what isn't.

Mateo, si, si you are correct. But, methinks you have made a distinction without a difference. Dispensations allowing priests to marry and still use their priestly faculties are not unheard of.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm getting too tired for this but... My point did not disagree with Al's, I affirmed that the Pope could change the discipline and allow married men to be ordained. My problem is with an attitude that treats celibacy for priests as a kind of arbitrary discipline. I think it is an essential part of the priesthood (not the particular discipline of Rome but celibate priests in general). There have always been celibate clergy (many of the Apostles, monastics and a minority of secular in the East, and for the most part all in the West) and I see it as being of great Theological importance. I believe this is consistent with the Eastern and Western understanding of the priesthood and celibacy. That's really all I wanted to say. So the point is there will always be celibate priests (though not necessarily a requirement of celibacy) because I think it's evident that this is part of God's plan for His priesthood. So even if the Catholic Church allows married men to be priests it will still maintain celibacy too. Call it my opinion, but I consider more of a Theological conviction. One might say, if the Church can require strict celibacy why couldn't it require strictly married priests? My answer would be similar to the answer the Pope gave on women priests.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Laudate, thank God you can't bind anyone by your private interpretation of what is doctrinal and what isn't.

Celibacy, canonically speaking is a discipline. But you must grant that it is more than that because it is bound up with the Theology of the priesthood, so there is a doctrinal dimension which informs the discipline!

Edited January 24, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Aloysius]

for communications sake, i think laudate is saying:

married ppl may be ordained. celibate priesthood is a good discipline. celibate priesthood shouldn't necessarily be required especially of the eastern rites. celibate priesthood should maintain it's respected position. however, the other rites should not necessarily change. but there does exist celibate priests in the rites that allow married priesthood, and that vow should be respected...

[Laudate_Dominum]

I think I was originally trying to clarify the concept that "celibacy is a discipline". There is still a structure and a meaning to it, it's not an arbitrary discipline, it has a relation to doctrine and I think this should be taken into account when discussing the issue of the Roman Church ordaining married men. Unfortunately the conversation took some unpleasant turns.

Thanks Al

[Laudate_Dominum]

hyper,

I was not at all impressed with your style in this conversation. You were quite belligerent and didn't offer much in terms of real argument, you got a few low personal attacks in however.

If you weren't far away, behind a screen some place, I would suggest a boxing match.

Faretheewell...

[hyperdulia again]

Beinng called an idiot "You obviously don't know much about..." tends to make even the most patient of saints (which I am not) a little testy. Plus I haven't slept in a week.

[Norseman82]

and Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Catholics had married Bishops.

I'm interested in hearing more about this (from a historical perspective).

[hyperdulia again]

They fell into Nestorianism and had lost the Monastic Tradition. When they came back Rome had to choose between giving them foreign Bishops (which they wouldn't have accepted) and allowing the Bishops they had to use their Apostolic Authority. The latter was chosen.

[Aloysius]

hyper,

I was not at all impressed with your style in this conversation. You were quite belligerent and didn't offer much in terms of real argument, you got a few low personal attacks in however.

If you weren't far away, behind a screen some place, I would suggest a boxing match.

Faretheewell...

actually, (who am i to judge but...), i didn't like either of your attitudes towards one another. and some of the stuff you yelled at hyper for was just misinterpretation. like when he legitimately asked you if you've had formal education on the subject, you called it rude. i considered it a legitamate question, just that the tone cannot always be conveyed over the internet.

w/e i'm no saint. just don't think it was only one side that lead to the overall attitude of the convo between u 2. we all need to be careful in our attitudes, not have so much arrogance in what we know to be our opinion not Church doctrine, and to focus on what the topic is avoiding making it personal.

also remember that :pc: doesn't neccessarily convey the attitude of the typer, don't assume things are said with certain tones if they could very well have a different tone. now if there's a :rollseyes: there, only then may you assume sarcasm, any other time you suspect it, reread it first and make sure it couldn't be interpreted another way before posting in outrage of a sarcastic comment.

as VeraMaria would interpret it, i'm flicking you off

but really i'm just scolding you, I who have no right to scold