The Church is not infallible in matters of discipline, or else discipline could never change.If the Church says Priests must be celibrate, than so be it. She is infallible in faith and morals and I will not judge her descisons. I accept her teachings and I will continue to pray for all the Church.
Here I think I disagree. Disciplines are based in infallibilty in that they cannot contradict the faith. They can be changed but that does make them wrong.The Church is not infallible in matters of discipline, or else discipline could never change.
This isn’t a matter of agreement or disagreement. Actually bilop is correct. Disciplines are not infallible. Only Church Doctrine on faith and morals are infallible…as you will see below.Here I think I disagree. Disciplines are based in infallibilty in that they cannot contradict the faith. They can be changed but that does make them wrong.
I think you highlight a lot of important issues.I am always hesitant to answer this question, as a young man discerning to be a priest, but here are some thoughts I have.
Allowing married men to be ordained would definitely, in some ways, ease discernment, because for all intents and purposes, it is currently a this or that choice. Married or Ordained. I know that personally, I have struggled with the fact that I could not date, or have children, and that would be eased if I could do so.
However, it also would make discernment harder. I would have to be sure that I could support a family and the Church at the same time, which would be hard to figure out, as I wouldn’t know for sure till after I am ordained, and by then it is too late. So I would have to make a good decision.
It would put a lot of stress on the wife, first of, she would have to be a good Catholic for various reasons. She would have to be supportive of the priesthood, not be a cause for scandal, etc. What if she wanted a divorce, certainly this would reflect badly on both the priest and his wife. And to a minor extent, I do not think a spouse would make for a good confessor. Yes, they should tell everything to each other, but at the same time, that is a degree of openness that could be dangerous, especially regarding the breaking of the sacramental seal.
So do I think a married clergy would work? yes
Do I think it is better than a celibate one? no
If allowed, would I go out today and find me a wife before I got ordained? no, but you can bet it would be a lot longer before ordination, while I try to decide a whole bunch of new things.
I don’t think I get this.Here I think I disagree. Disciplines are based in infallibilty in that they cannot contradict the faith. They can be changed but that does make them wrong.
None of that contradicts what I said.This isn’t a matter of agreement or disagreement. Actually bilop is correct. Disciplines are not infallible. Only Church Doctrine on faith and morals are infallible…as you will see below.
You are correct in saying that disciplines cannot contradict the faith. And they don’t.
Theological Definition-from NEW ADVENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
The Vatican Council (Sess. iv, cap. iv) solemnly taught the doctrine of papal infallibility in the following terms:
“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ, that is to say, when in the exercise of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians he, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, defines that a doctrine on faith or morals is to be held by the whole Church, by the assistance of God promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, has that infallibility with which it was the will of Our Divine Redeemer that His Church should be furnished in defining a doctrine on faith or morals.”
CCC #88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law
This sounds reasonable to me.I think you highlight a lot of important issues.
That’s why I think, if the Church decided to ordain married men in the Latin Church more frequently, they should restrict it to long-married men over a certain age. Say, over 50 and married at least 20 years.
God Bless
I was trying to say that changing disciplines as needed does not mean they are wrong in the first place. IOW, I cannot see how the Church is “mistaken” in a discipline like celibacy.I don’t think I get this.
Can you cite an example of church discipline (outside of this present issue of clerical celibacy) which might help illustrate what you are trying to state here?
I don’t see how changing a discipline will contradict the faith.
Correct. But it can’t be said the the discipline of celibacy (or any discipline) is in any way “infallible”, because it is not universal and can change.I was trying to say that changing disciplines as needed does not mean they are wrong in the first place. IOW, I cannot see how the Church is “mistaken” in a discipline like celibacy.
That is why I tried to word it carefully and gave the link to New Advent which explains it well… People tend to think disciplines are arbitrary and open for debate continually. Celibacy, as one issue, of course can be modified but it is in no way wrong or contrary to the faith.Correct. But it can’t be said the the discipline of celibacy (or any discipline) is in any way “infallible”, because it is not universal and can change.
A discipline must not contradict any infallible teaching, but is not in itself infallible.
God Bless
I don’t think most people seriously make such a claim, but I see your point now.That is why I tried to word it carefully and gave the link to New Advent which explains it well… People tend to think disciplines are arbitrary and open for debate continually. Celibacy, as one issue, of course can be modified but it is in no way wrong or contrary to the faith.
And I do not see how any discipline can be wrong or contrary to the faith.
I was not basing the restriction on age, but on marital status. If a single man is ordained late in life, there should be no restriction. I was just saying that the exclusion of the married priest from the espicopate should continue, and that, perhaps, they wouldn’t be chosen as pastors either.I would think that if you restricted ordaining married men to those over 50 who have some financial stability, and limited their roles (can’t be pastors or bishops), you might be able to increase the number of total priests without destroying the special charism of the celibate priesthood.
**Let’s not forget something:
The English word “priest” comes from the Greek name for the second order of ministry: “presbyteros”, which means “older man.”
Why should age at ordination to the priesthood be an exclusion from being either a pastor or bishop? **
There have certainly been disciplines that were unwise, whether at the time they were enacted or which became unwise over the course of time. Is an unwise choice a wrong choice? Yes and no, depending on what you mean by “wrong”.And I do not see how any discipline can be wrong or contrary to the faith.
Hmmmm . . . more of your watered-down, cafeteria Catholicism, huh?I voted yes. It would attract more people to the clergy who are currently sitting on the sidelines.
In today’s modern world, legal safeguards of personal/church property could be easily resolved through a mandatory prenuptial agreement. The spouse would only have rights to the priest’s personal property, not the Church’s.
Women were not mentioned in this except for being the wife. The issue of women being ordained is ended. Thank God it won’t happen. I did ask when I started this thread that the issue of women not be used.Hmmmm . . . more of your watered-down, cafeteria Catholicism, huh?
Tell me something, as Tantum ergo already pointed out, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis declares that the* “Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”* and that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful".
Which part of that do you not understand?
He ( Fr. Cozzens) makes a distinction between charismatic celibates and legislated celibates. He says they are some people who are called to a life of celibacy. He does not like the idea of legislated celibacy, the kind of celibacy Latin priests are mandated to live.
He argues that if the Church is correct that every priest receives the grace of celibacy when called to the priesthood, then there is no need to legislate it because you cannot legislate gifts or graces.
The author argues that the practice of married clergy would not be a new thing in the Church as it has been part of the Church’s tradition for the first 1200 years of Christianity. He lists some Popes that were married and are saints. Examples include Pope St. Anastasius 1 (399-401) and Pope St. Hormisdas (514-523). “The number of married bishops and priests in the first twelve centuries is beyond reckoning.”
He mentions the fact that many Latin rite priests today are married. These are priests who upon “converting to Catholicism from ministerial roles in Anglican and protestant denominations, have been dispensed from the law of celibacy.”
It is important to note that he does not argue against celibacy through out the book, his argument is against legislated celibacy.
The ordination of subdeacons.I don’t think I get this.
Can you cite an example of church discipline (outside of this present issue of clerical celibacy) which might help illustrate what you are trying to state here?
I don’t see how changing a discipline will contradict the faith.