Celibacy: east vs. west

[Layman]

Revival does not equate with novelty.

And it would appear you know little about the office of deacon; a deacon would serve a parish very much in the same way whether it is an EF parish, and OF parish, or a blend of the two. The office of deacon is not defined by his participation in the Mass.

I can think of only one EF parish in the UK. i.e. a parish where the EF is an integral part of the parish, rather than tacked on. I know that the traditionalist community would like more priests, to say Masses, but I’ve heard no calls for deacons. We/They don’t need them for marigages or baptisms, which are the rites they principally perform, I understand.

 

[Layman]

So, that argument–such and such was normal for 1500 years – is not as “tight” as wikipedia may make it seem.

It seems from that article, authoritiative or not, that many pious fathers of the Church thought that celibacy was very important.

Now, the arguments pro-married priests in the Roman Catholic Church are

1. That converts to Roman Catholicism, who are already married and ordained outside the church, may be ordained and
2. Married clergy might be better at counselling married people.

Are there others? Please state them succinctly.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What do you base that claim on?

Who are you to say what someone feels there calling is, is wrong? Did God say this?

Yes, God does say this. The Church says that a man in the Latin Church can not have a calling to both the priesthood and marriage.

So logically speaking…

a) God works through His Church.
b) God does not Call a person where he can not go
so therefore
c) God does not Call a man in the Latin Church to both the priesthood and marriage.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What do you base that claim on?

Who are you to say what someone feels there calling is, is wrong? Did God say this?

This was answered earlier in the thread. God doesn’t call you to a vocation you can’t lawfully fulfill; in this case marriage and priesthood in the Roman Catholic church.

This can be seen with an easy logic construct.

a) God works through His Church
b) God does not Call a man to where he can not go
so therefore…
c) God does not Call a man in the Latin Church to both marriage and the priesthood.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What do you base that claim on?

Who are you to say what someone feels there calling is, is wrong? Did God say this?

This was answered earlier in the thread. God doesn’t call you to a vocation you can’t lawfully fulfill; in this case marriage and priesthood in the Roman Catholic church.

It is very easy when you use this logic construct.

a) God works through His Church.
b) God will not Call someone to a place they can not go.
so therefore…
c) When someone feels a Call that they can not fulfill then it is not a Call from God.

So a man in the Latin Church who feels a call to both marriage and the priesthood is not Called to both, just as a woman who feels a call to the priesthood is not called to it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This was answered earlier in the thread. God doesn’t call you to a vocation you can’t lawfully fulfill; in this case marriage and priesthood in the Roman Catholic church.

You got it, God does not call where one can not go but it is also that God works through His Church, not against it.

 

[Layman]

So, that argument–such and such was normal for 1500 years – is not as “tight” as wikipedia may make it seem.

So it was promoted by the church fathers for three quarters of the lifetime of the church and that’s not ‘tight’ enough?

Reasons given to let married Roman Catholic men be priests:

1. Some married converts are ordained priests.
2. Married priests might be better at counselling married couples.
3. Some married men, or men who want also to marry, (mistakenly), think they have a vocation.
4. It might increase the number of priests.

Are there any others?

 

[Layman]

Sorry, sort of a duplicate posting. CF database seems to be playing up.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sorry, sort of a duplicate posting. CF database seems to be playing up.

Samething happened to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So it was promoted by the church fathers for three quarters of the lifetime of the church and that’s not ‘tight’ enough?

Reasons given to let married Roman Catholic men be priests:

1. Some married converts are ordained priests.
2. Married priests might be better at counselling married couples.
3. Some married men, or men who want also to marry, (mistakenly), think they have a vocation.
4. It might increase the number of priests.

Are there any others?

How about, the East does it.

 

[Layman]

1. The East does it.

[Because someone else does something is not a logical reason for you to do it. e.g. a good friend gets a tattoo. Is that sufficient reason for you to get one also? No.]

Any more reasons?

 

[malphono]

This discussion seems to be going around in circles, what with the re-introduction of the premise “because the East does it” (among other things), and I have to interject a comment and a disclaimer.

I know of no one in the East or Orient who would support the notion of exporting a discipline to the West. Those who seem to push the premise “because the East does it” seem to be looking for a justification, and it just doesn’t hold water. We of the East and Orient have been saddled with enough latinizations over the centuries (and some Oriental Churches, in particular, continue to be affected by them), to know that the idea of having one or another discipline imported from or imposed by the Roman Church is, at best, distasteful.

For a good many years, the East and Orient in diaspora was saddled with having to observe the Roman disciple in regard to clerical celibacy, which amounts to an imposed latinization. Arguing the issue from the premise “because the East does it” is, in effect, supporting what I’ll call (for lack of a better term off-hand) an imposed “Easternization” which is equally unacceptable.

There are many reasons why this particular discipline in the Roman Church might be changed, but simply “because the East does it” is not one of them.

 

[ProVobis]

There are many reasons why this particular discipline in the Roman Church might be changed, but simply “because the East does it” is not one of them.

“Because the early Church did it” is another justification for practices.

 

[malphono]

“Because the early Church did it” is another justification for practices.

Yep, and that takes us back to antiquarianism which is yet another discredited premise. Among the things that those who push antiquarianism seem to conveniently ignore is the fact that one or another practice or discipline either underwent an organic change, or it was changed for a particular reason (which in some cases was to combat abuses).

 

[Aramis]

Pope Paul VI “restored” the deacon to his rightful place. He reinsituted married men being admitted to the dIaconate. He based this on the praxis having gone wrong in the Roman Rite, and having devalued the diaconate erroneously. (And also having erred about the nature of Subdeaconal ordination in the Roman Church.)

He could have gone further; He did not.

One can prove it would not be outside the overall Catholic phronema to have married priests as well, since the early church had them in all regions, the EC’s have them now, and Rome still had some into the 12th C.

The question becomes one of was the removal of married clergy in the Roman Rite (1) authentic development, (2) doctrinal or merely disciplinary, and (3) theologically supported.

Authentic development? Yes. It happened slowly, over a period of several hundred years, continually marginalizing married clerics in the Roman Church.
Doctrinal or disciplinary? Disciplinary. Rome didn’t bar those remaining married clerics from function when it barred new ordinations of married men.
Theologically supported? Not when it happened. It was a reaction to a string of property issues. It was not a change made to conform to scripture (and in fact moves away from St. Paul’s instructions on whom to ordain). It contributed to what Pope Paul VI described as an error: the devaluation of the diaconate as a ministry.

“Because the East Does It” isn’t a reason for the Latins to do it, but it’s proof that it isn’t wrong if the Latins return to doing it.

The ordination of Widowers shows that having been married nor having children is not impediment to Holy Orders. The ordination of men with a wife to the Diaconate shows that marriage is not an Impediment to Holy Orders, either.

Whether Rome does open the priesthood to married men or not will not be doctrinal error either way.