Father Alberto

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1862718' date='May 9 2009, 12:01 PM']you just judged me and called me a cafeteria catholic.[/quote]

if you don't think our rules are inspired by God...who do you think makes them?

[Guest]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1862722' date='May 9 2009, 12:04 PM']if you don't think our rules are inspired by God...who do you think makes them?[/quote]

I do think they are inspired by God but humans make mistakes. I hold to the opinon mandatory celibacy for the priesthood and bishops could be a teaching that isn't 100 % correct.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Guest

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1862723' date='May 9 2009, 12:06 PM']I do think they are inspired by God but humans make mistakes. I hold to the opionon mandatory celibacy for the priesthood and bishops could be a teaching that isn't 100 % correct.[/quote]

That's a dangerous slippery slope. Domino effect.

[Guest]

A Critical Consideration of The Case for Clerical Celibacy
By Anthony T. Dragani

Although the general populace is unaware of it, during the past decade a new effort has been underway to defend the Roman Catholic practice of mandatory priestly celibacy. Putting aside the traditional sociological arguments that we are all familiar with, these new defenders argue for the discipline based primarily on historical grounds. Although their writings have not reached a broad audience, they have found a committed following in some Catholic circles.

Normally I would not concern myself with a defense of the Roman Catholic discipline of mandatory celibacy. After all, it is their tradition and they certainly have a right to defend it. However, this new literature goes a step further and seriously questions the legitimacy of the Eastern tradition of a married priesthood. Representative of the position is The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler. This book is essentially a popularization of the claims of two other authors, distilled into a very readable format. Cardinal Stickler aims to get the word out that mandatory celibacy is the genuine discipline, and that the tradition practiced in the East is an unfortunate "innovation."

As an Eastern Catholic I am especially troubled by this claim. The history of Eastern Catholicism in North America has been marred by repeated attempts to impose mandatory celibacy upon us, always with tragic results. We have fought long and hard to affirm the legitimacy of our tradition of a married priesthood, and even now this issue is a subject of major concern and sensitivity. Therefore, the fact that an influential Cardinal has written a book that argues against the legitimacy of our tradition causes me some apprehension.

Exactly who is Cardinal Stickler? According to his biography on the book's cover he is "a member of numerous international academic organizations and academies. He has been a consultor to many Congregations of the Roman Curia, was a member of the preparatory commission for the Second Vatican Council, a peritus to three of the Council Commissions, and a member of the commission for the preparation of the new Codex Iurus Canonici." These are very impressive credentials to say the least. It is something of a daunting task to critique a book written by such an accomplished churchman, but as an Eastern Catholic I am compelled to answer his charges.

The book itself is divided into four sections. Section I sets forth his premise and methodology. Section II details the history of celibacy in the Latin Church. Section III scrutinizes the Eastern tradition of married clerics, with a special emphasis on the Council in Trullo. Finally, Section IV puts forth a theology of celibacy. We will examine each section of the book in order.


Click the link below to continue reading his essay:

Clerical Celibacy
[url="http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm"]http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm[/url]

Edited May 9, 2009 by Guest

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1862723' date='May 9 2009, 12:06 PM']I do think they are inspired by God but humans make mistakes. I hold to the opionon mandatory celibacy for the priesthood and bishops could be a teaching that isn't 100 % correct.[/quote]


so, for 900 years God has not been correct?


I just don't seperate the Church from God...i guess that's where you and I differ...

[Guest]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1862727' date='May 9 2009, 12:10 PM']so, for 900 years God has not been correct?


I just don't seperate the Church from God...i guess that's where you and I differ...[/quote]

So why can the eastern church bring a wife with them into the priesthood then ?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1862726' date='May 9 2009, 12:08 PM']A Critical Consideration of The Case for Clerical Celibacy
By Anthony T. Dragani

Although the general populace is unaware of it, during the past decade a new effort has been underway to defend the Roman Catholic practice of mandatory priestly celibacy. Putting aside the traditional sociological arguments that we are all familiar with, these new defenders argue for the discipline based primarily on historical grounds. Although their writings have not reached a broad audience, they have found a committed following in some Catholic circles.

Normally I would not concern myself with a defense of the Roman Catholic discipline of mandatory celibacy. After all, it is their tradition and they certainly have a right to defend it. However, this new literature goes a step further and seriously questions the legitimacy of the Eastern tradition of a married priesthood. Representative of the position is The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler. This book is essentially a popularization of the claims of two other authors, distilled into a very readable format. Cardinal Stickler aims to get the word out that mandatory celibacy is the genuine discipline, and that the tradition practiced in the East is an unfortunate "innovation."

As an Eastern Catholic I am especially troubled by this claim. The history of Eastern Catholicism in North America has been marred by repeated attempts to impose mandatory celibacy upon us, always with tragic results. We have fought long and hard to affirm the legitimacy of our tradition of a married priesthood, and even now this issue is a subject of major concern and sensitivity. Therefore, the fact that an influential Cardinal has written a book that argues against the legitimacy of our tradition causes me some apprehension.

Exactly who is Cardinal Stickler? According to his biography on the book's cover he is "a member of numerous international academic organizations and academies. He has been a consultor to many Congregations of the Roman Curia, was a member of the preparatory commission for the Second Vatican Council, a peritus to three of the Council Commissions, and a member of the commission for the preparation of the new Codex Iurus Canonici." These are very impressive credentials to say the least. It is something of a daunting task to critique a book written by such an accomplished churchman, but as an Eastern Catholic I am compelled to answer his charges.

The book itself is divided into four sections. Section I sets forth his premise and methodology. Section II details the history of celibacy in the Latin Church. Section III scrutinizes the Eastern tradition of married clerics, with a special emphasis on the Council in Trullo. Finally, Section IV puts forth a theology of celibacy. We will examine each section of the book in order.


Click the link below to continue reading his essay:

Clerical Celibacy[/quote]

fr. Cutie is not an eastern Rite priest...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1862728' date='May 9 2009, 12:12 PM']So why can the eastern church bring a wife with them into the priesthood then ?[/quote]

Why can't a eastern priest who was not already married, marry?

[Guest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1862732' date='May 9 2009, 01:13 PM']Why can't a eastern priest who was not already married, marry?[/quote]
Pry cause the church says so which btw is good enough for me. But I can still have an opinion.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Guest

[HisChildForever]

I believe that priests should remain celibate. If they are permitted to marry OR if lay married men are allowed to be ordained, I feel that attention will be turned towards nuns and sisters (let them marry too! etc.). Furthermore, could you imagine a priest who receives one phone call to Hospital A where his wife is giving birth, and one phone call to Hospital B not ten minutes later where a priest is desperately needed to administer Last Rites?

Anyway, if lay married men are allowed to be ordained and suddenly vocations are on the rise, are these REAL vocations? I think "real" is the wrong word to use but I am having difficulty finding a better word. Basically, I feel that if a man "passed up" the priesthood for a family he has realized through much discernment that the priesthood is not his calling. Edit - Because men who realize that the priesthood is not their vocation usually have valid reasons besides or other than the celibacy requirement. Therefore the man truly knows that he is not called to be a priest and did not exclude the possibility simply because he would have to be celibate.

Can you have two vocations, marriage AND the priesthood, at the same time?

Edited May 9, 2009 by HisChildForever

[Guest]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1862675' date='May 9 2009, 12:31 PM']Of course, the media, cafeteria Catholics and the worldly would jump on the bandwagon protesting the Celibate priesthood...[/quote]

carefull

[Apotheoun]

There are two primary issues that have arisen in this thread: (1) the making of vows to God or your fellow man, and (2) the celibate priesthood. Now, as far as the first issue is concerned, a man is honor bound to keep a vow he makes to God or his fellow man, and to break a vow is always a truly terrible thing indeed; but as far as second point is concerned, the celibate priesthood is not a doctrine of the Church, nor is it a teaching of the Church, it is instead simply a discipline of the Roman Church. In fact, there is no inherent connection between celibacy and the priesthood, which would require -- as a matter of faith -- that a priest be unmarried.

Nevertheless, the Roman Church should keep (at least for the foreseeable future) its discipline on this issue intact, not because there is some kind of "doctrine" or "teaching" on celibate priesthood, but simply because the Roman Church has dispensed with too many of its customs, which has bred a sense among some of the faithful that change, rather than tradition, is part of what it is to be a Catholic.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1862735' date='May 9 2009, 11:18 AM']Can you have two vocations, marriage AND the priesthood, at the same time?[/quote]
Yes, the Eastern Churches have always held that a man can have a vocation to marriage and the priesthood.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1862735' date='May 9 2009, 12:18 PM']I believe that priests should remain celibate. If they are permitted to marry OR if lay married men are allowed to be ordained, I feel that attention will be turned towards nuns and sisters (let them marry too! etc.). Furthermore, could you imagine a priest who receives one phone call to Hospital A where his wife is giving birth, and one phone call to Hospital B not ten minutes later where a priest is desperately needed to administer Last Rites?

Anyway, if lay married men are allowed to be ordained and suddenly vocations are on the rise, are these REAL vocations? I think "real" is the wrong word to use but I am having difficulty finding a better word. Basically, I feel that if a man "passed up" the priesthood for a family he has realized through much discernment that the priesthood is not his calling. Edit - Because men who realize that the priesthood is not their vocation usually have valid reasons besides or other than the celibacy requirement. Therefore the man truly knows that he is not called to be a priest and did not exclude the possibility simply because he would have to be celibate.

Can you have two vocations, marriage AND the priesthood, at the same time?[/quote]

I agree. and i never thought about the two vocations thing...that's interesting...

I just think the priests I talk to have the best reason for a celibate priesthood: Jesus was celibate! I mean, why argue about it? That's good enough reason!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1862741' date='May 9 2009, 11:25 AM']I agree. and i never thought about the two vocations thing...that's interesting...[/quote]
The Eastern Churches have always held that a man can have a vocation to marriage and a vocation to the priesthood.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1862741' date='May 9 2009, 11:25 AM']I just think the priests I talk to have the best reason for a celibate priesthood: Jesus was celibate! I mean, why argue about it? That's good enough reason![/quote]
All men are icons of Christ, just as all women are icons of Mary.

In the Eastern Churches it is the monks in particular who iconically represent Christ.