L
Little_Katie
Guest
wow- just when I think I know all there is to know about the Church, something new surprises me. I never knew that there ‘could’ be a married priest. I thought that ALL valid priests were celibate!! 
Can a former Anglican minister now a R. C. Married Priest be the main presider at Mass?
- Status
C
CMP2
Guest
To Yellowbell:
Strange isn’t enough to describe this confusion. Sorry I respect all that wrote but I fear a sandy base to all arguments in favor of a non Celibate Priesthood. If Christ was Celibate then His successors should be Eastern, or not. They aren’t. Case made. I will not dwell on it any longer but I will pray for our Church, that she will continue to “lead” and not be led by a “minority” opinion (I do learn and did learn that this is less than 1%. Reminds me of another “political” group with a lot of “clout” IN the world.), and the that desires to make all warm and fuzzy (another group). World opinion appears to have a strong pull. Too bad.
A quote: which was given to me… Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. I WILL PRAY HE WILL SOON.
Thanks to all for “putting up” with this devil’s advocate of a person and one that is only asking as it is all so vague.
Strange isn’t enough to describe this confusion. Sorry I respect all that wrote but I fear a sandy base to all arguments in favor of a non Celibate Priesthood. If Christ was Celibate then His successors should be Eastern, or not. They aren’t. Case made. I will not dwell on it any longer but I will pray for our Church, that she will continue to “lead” and not be led by a “minority” opinion (I do learn and did learn that this is less than 1%. Reminds me of another “political” group with a lot of “clout” IN the world.), and the that desires to make all warm and fuzzy (another group). World opinion appears to have a strong pull. Too bad.
A quote: which was given to me… Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. I WILL PRAY HE WILL SOON.
Thanks to all for “putting up” with this devil’s advocate of a person and one that is only asking as it is all so vague.
A
Aramis
Guest
CMP2:
The problem is that most do not understand the canon law meaning of the term ordinary power. It is nothing more than the power the church grants to a bishop of a place by virtue of being the bishop of the place.
Amongst other things:
To Baptise, Confirm, Ordain, absolve, establish houses of religious, establish seminaries, promulgate specific adaptations of the Liturgies as permitted by the original promulgations of those liturgies, to appoint specific priests as pastors, and specific priests as confessors, to acquire and dispose of properties of the church, to issue excommunications, to hold trial of and impose canonical sentence upon those who break canon law.
it helps to actually read the canon law on the pontiff.
it’s here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM
The problem is that most do not understand the canon law meaning of the term ordinary power. It is nothing more than the power the church grants to a bishop of a place by virtue of being the bishop of the place.
Amongst other things:
To Baptise, Confirm, Ordain, absolve, establish houses of religious, establish seminaries, promulgate specific adaptations of the Liturgies as permitted by the original promulgations of those liturgies, to appoint specific priests as pastors, and specific priests as confessors, to acquire and dispose of properties of the church, to issue excommunications, to hold trial of and impose canonical sentence upon those who break canon law.
it helps to actually read the canon law on the pontiff.
it’s here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM
K
kaygee
Guest
No stranger than this:
Matt 20
"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’
So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’
They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’
When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’
He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
(Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’
The groom’s godfather came into the vinyard under certain conditions, among them, celibacy. The bride’s uncle came into the vinyard later under differing conditions, including chastity in the married state. it doesn’t seem fair, but that’s up to the landowner to decide. And His decisions are just and merciful, although they are beyond our understanding.
C
CMP2
Guest
Well Katie, welcome to the club. I knew that there was a policy in our Church since I came upon the organization TAC (Traditional Anglican “catholics”) Small c. is mine. It means simply universal not Holy or Roman. A well kept, if not secret, then hidden agenda. For years until it came on the scene and was enacted.wow- just when I think I know all there is to know about the Church, something new surprises me. I never knew that there ‘could’ be a married priest. I thought that ALL valid priests were celibate!!
So, what can I say. I seem to be one of the small voices that is looking for clarification and not finding a whole lot. My point is, don’t lose heart. Don’t accept on “face” value without prayer and discernment. This I have done and I am still not convinced that this is based on T (capital T)radition. I know I am a thorn in Liberal and “forward” thinking sides, but I cannot, now will I compromise. The alarms have sounded in my soul and I am ever vigilant. We have just come out of “40 yrs. in the desert” (quote from the Society of the Traditional Latin Mass.
"40 years I have endured that generation. I said, "They are a people whose hearts have GONE ASTRAY, and they know not my ways. So I swore in my anger, “They shall not enter into my rest.” Psalm 95
This is all too clear to me. We have come a full 40 yrs. since the “smoke” was present in the Vatican.
Am I “radical”? Yes. I am a convert and I would die for my Roman Catholic Faith, and I will not just sit back and watch the Church step back again into the times of confusion we came through since the misinterpretation of Vat. II. It is building itself up again on the Rock since JPII and Benedict, and I hate to see us repeat error of the past. Will it happen, yes, being human beings you can bet on it. Been there, don’t want to go back. Either in faith or Church doctrine and teaching.
Sorry to all that this disturbs. Sorry I am not being as trusting and obedient as I hope to be. I just ask, no I beg all to be vigilant. The enemy is stalking like a lion looking for souls to devour and I pray they won’t be the misguided.
Pray, pray, pray that the Holy Father will hold fast and not be swayed by errant Bishops (especially in the developed nations). May God guide and keep me from error. I am only quoting what I have read and heard.
+God bless all on Catholic Answers, CMP2
C
CMP2
Guest
Thank you Aramis, I will go over this and read it and pray on it. This is all I ask. Firm guidance. I will see if it helps. If it is only my confusion then good. I am not looking for a battle with the “faithful” Roman Catholics on this site. I am trying to understand what the Church is thinking.
C
CMP2
Guest
Good point Matt, but the groom’s godfather made a choice. It is his and if he is excluded from the Holy Sacraments then so be it. That is one decision I CAN support. Sad but true.
K
kaygee
Guest
Just for the record, Matt 20 is not my name, it’s the Gospel chapter from which the quote came . . .
C
Chatter163
Guest
I understand the terms used quite completely, quite thoroughly and quite cogently, thank you.
Was someone questioning his jurisdiction?
We were not talking about dogma or doctrine; we were talking about discipline. And there is absolutely NO requirement that he consult with bishops or anyone else. Canon law makes it clear that he is free to exercise his powers at any time. While the Pontiff often does consult with bishops, he is not required to do so. Thankfully he did not so with Summorum Pontificum. :extrahappy:
D
Digitonomy
Guest
A
Aramis
Guest
Wrong again. I know that SP was done after a consultation with at least one of the sacred congregations and discussions with a number of bishops. Not in the format of the synod, but it was not without prior consultation with the bishops. Several have commented upon having been consulted before hand.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**I never knew that there ‘could’ be a married priest. I thought that ALL valid priests were celibate!! **
Eastern Catholic Priests are frequently married.
Eastern Catholic Priests are frequently married.
C
Chatter163
Guest
Y
Yellow_Belle
Guest
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
And amazingly enough, stay married, have children, own property (real as well as personal) and live life. Sometimes, they are (sadly for the Latin Rite) treated with more respect than Roman priests.
I’m just using your post as a springboard, bpbasilphx. It’s simple, and effective.
To the rest:
Priests in a diocese do not take vows of poverty, generally. Order priests do- but they are celibate. The scale of pay is not the greatest for a priest of the diocese, but there is nothing to stop him from profiting from his authorship, investments, or his wife’s career. I know non-married priests who have investments, who have authored books, who have inherited from their parents and other relatives, who have a race car, who have a very nice Mustang, latest computer equipment, etc. Nobody has any problem with that. If a married priest has a wife with a good income, what is the big deal? She earned it.
We do not live in 1050. Most of us live in towns located in democratic republics, not fiefdoms. Any priest in the US, for example, is going to have a finance committee in his parish, and they WILL be looking at where the money goes (or should be, anyway). Likewise, nobody is going to recognize the son of a priest to whom said priest has turned over his parish. Priests do not show up at the front doors of our huts and expect tribute in the form of eggs, maid service, first dibs on the slaughtered pig, or firewood, in large part because we are not serfs. If he does, he is in for a rude awakening, at least in the United States, probably Australia as well. He might get fed well if he calls first, but if he thinks he has first rights on the household lawnmower as well as the household member who pushes it, or on the family’s weekly shopping, he has another thing coming.
Therefore, to worry about a married priest who converted from one of the Protestant ecclesial communities being less of a priest is a waste of time, and shows a lack of charity to that priest. His bishop has investigated him, along with his family. He might have had to inquire to several bishops, because the one where he lived while an Episcopalian or Lutheran might have thought him too “conservative” or not sufficiently stereotypically “Vatican II” enough to be a priest in that diocese. He might have had to move his entire family a good thousand miles to do that. He has been vetted by the Vatican. He has often given up a nice pension. He has often worked menial jobs in order to support his family, or had to swallow allowing his wife support the family, while he attended seminary. He IS worthy.
So, instead of worrying about whether or not they can do what they are doing, please relax and let them do their jobs! There are few enough priests as it is.
http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=93
http://www.amazon.com/Married-Catho...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223911899&sr=1-2
- Status