Celibacy: east vs. west

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Br. Jr. I’m glad you clarified the cross thing- because that is exactly what I feel. I feel that by entering a life of celibacy, I would be carrying my cross- but it is a necessary cross because I would be able to evangelize, catechize, and administer the sacraments. I recently emailed a seminary rector and he told me that if I viewed celibacy as a cross, I would not fit in at his seminary. I am starting to re-think my vocation. Is it common to be very depressed when contemplating the priesthood? Because I am depressed, not because being a priest makes me sad, but because the idea of giving up a wife, children, and yes the marital act makes me sad.

By the way when Jesus talks about carrying a cross, what is he referring to?
The vocation director is objectively right. We do not embrace a call as a cross. Crosses do come. These are usually the sacrifices that we must make to remain faithful in what we have promised.

Remember something else. I say this to the men in formation for my community. “You cannot give anything to God except permission to take what he wants.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The vocation director is objectively right. We do not embrace a call as a cross. Crosses do come. These are usually the sacrifices that we must make to remain faithful in what we have promised.

Remember something else. I say this to the men in formation for my community. “You cannot give anything to God except permission to take what he wants.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Br. JR- if I knew that I could go to heaven by pursuing marriage and fatherhood I would do it. However, Isn’t rejecting a call the same thing that the rich young man did?
 
Br. JR- if I knew that I could go to heaven by pursuing marriage and fatherhood I would do it. However, Isn’t rejecting a call the same thing that the rich young man did?
You must remember that a Call is not just a feeling.

God does not call you to where you can not go. This has been said many times to you but you do not seem to wish to hear this.

Feeling a call to marriage and the priesthood in the Latin Church shows that your feeling is wrong.

That or you believe that God either does not work through His Church or that God is evil as He would call you to a vocation that you can not answer.

I am sorry for being so blunt here but I think it is time for this as we keep going in circles with you on this.

It is time for you to get a spiritual director and to really work on this rather than just discussing it on an anonymous internet forum.
 
Br. JR- if I knew that I could go to heaven by pursuing marriage and fatherhood I would do it. However, Isn’t rejecting a call the same thing that the rich young man did?
Brother David is correct. To put it simply, you’re arm wrestling with God and making yourself miserable in the process. Find a spiritual director. The Internet is not the place to get spiritual direction.

Another fact that you must remember is that most of the folks with whom you’re interacting know very little, if anything, on how to guide a person through the discernment of a vocation. It’s a very specialized ministry that requires many years of study and experience. Even vocation directors are not well equipped in the discernment of spirits. Their function is to guide a man or woman through the steps involved in entering a seminary or religious community. Very few are trained spiritual directors. It’s not a requirement for the job. That’s why people will often get short answers from them. They don’t want to go into spiritual discernment with the person who presents before them. They assume, rightly so, that the person has gone through this with a spiritual director.

There are lay people, deacons, priests, religious brothers and religious sisters who are trained spiritual directors. This is their ministry. If you ask your confessor, he can point you to one, unless you already have one.

And yes . . . one can go to heaven by pursuing marriage and having a family. Millions of men and women have done it. The number of married saints far surpasses the number of priests who are saints. It’s just easier to canonize priests and religious. It does not mean that these are the largest number of saints.

Remember this too. A call may begin as a feeling. But a feeling is not always a call. It can be an attraction, just like an atrraction to any other noble work or way of life. I always share this example with people. I hope that it helps you too.

When I entered my community, I told the superior that I wanted to be a priest. His response was favorable. I went through four-years of undergrad and took all of the required philosophy and then proceeded to graduate school for four-years of theology. After making final vows, my superior came up to me and said, “I’ve noticed your astuteness and passion for theology. You’re going to Rome for a Doctorate in Sacred Theology.” I went to Rome and put in four more years of theology. When I returned I asked him about Holy Orders. He said, “We have a surplus of priests in the order; but we don’t have good theologians and formators. Christ calls through the superior and the needs of the order and the Church. Go and train priests.” That was the end of that. Christ had spoken. I went on to teach theology to future deacons and priests instead of becoming a priest. Now . . . many years later, I realize that my superior was right. I had it in my mind that my desire and skills for preaching and teaching were the stuff that makes for a priest. I was wrong and my superior was right. However, this does not mean that I have not done my share of preaching and evangelizing. Our feelings are important, because God often uses them to speak to us. However, we can often misunderstand them. The message can get lost in the emotion.

I’m thinking of a man like Dr. Scott Hahn. The man will go down in history as one of the best evangelists in the American Catholic Church. But he’s not a priest or a deacon. He’s a husband, father and grandfather. He’s a very holy who has served as teacher and spiritual director to many seminarians, religious and lay people. Another great evangelist and spiritual guide who is married is Ralph Martin. You may want to look at these men and their ministry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
There is also the very real possibility that God is offering you a choice… pick either: Marriage or Clerical Life. (I know a priest who felt that way. He chose marriage. After his wife died, he entered the secular priesthood. And is an incredibly warm, friendly, and effective priest. God did call him to both… one at a time.)

And it’s also just possible that the call isn’t to the priesthood, but the diaconate… also a clerical life, but not one that is incompatible with marriage.

In any case, it’s time to sit down with the vocations director and have a LONG series of talks, and get into a good prayer life.
 
Guarantee, no. Indicator, yes. Celibacy is a higher estate.
No, it is not even an indicator. It is totally separate from priesthood.
Actually, I read that before Vatican II, parish priests were the “Popes of their parish”. Once in situ, they could not easily be moved or influenced. Now I hear they can be moved at the whim of the bishop. My understanding is that it would be a brave priest who would currently introduce a TLM to his church if his bishop was liberal, Motu Proprio or no, for example.
I don’t know from what source you are reading. It is hardly based on a whim; and priests were moved before Vatican 2. The issue of the EF and priests saying it or not saying it is off topic.
My position is that I would like to be served by holy priests, who can be channel for graces. Celibacy is esteemed by God. God is the font of all holiness. His favour is important. I don’t see how, therefore, relaxing the rule on celibacy would help this end. It would be a good idea for the Pope to run that idea by Our Master via some living saints, who have conversations with Him, first, I think.
Most people would like to be served by holy priests. Celibacy is no guarantee of that and history shows that amply; and the issue of sex abuse is only one example. We have had many holy priests. We have also had priests who were not; they were all celibate.
Sure. Certain Non-Roman Catholics.
No, convert married ministers.
So if a married man currently wanted to be an R.C. priest he would have to contrive first to become ordained as an Anglican and then, convert, and then have a conditional ordination. If a bishop, he could then only be a priest in the R.C. church. I think that’s the route, isn’t it?
There has been no contriving. Non issue. The converts we are getting are not “back door Catholics” who have taken another route. They are Anglican, Epsicopal, Methodist, Lutheran, and at least on Presbyterian. That is the background they have come from when they convert.
 
There has been no contriving. Non issue. The converts we are getting are not “back door Catholics” who have taken another route. They are Anglican, Epsicopal, Methodist, Lutheran, and at least on Presbyterian. That is the background they have come from when they convert.
Yes, any Latin Catholic who attempted to skirt Canon Law in this way would be treated the same as a Latin Catholic who attempted to switch to an Eastern Catholic Church to skirt Canon Law and get ordained as a married man, he would be denied ordination.
 
Heh, I didn’t say anyone would or even could do a ‘back door’ method of getting married and ordained. It’s just my response to those who say **"There have always been married Roman Catholic priests(!!!)" **

** … But not mentioning that they are already-married converts. **

That seems to be the route. You just have to contrive to be born an Anglican, say, then become a married minister, then convert, then be given conditional ordination. Easy! 🙂
 
Yes, any Latin Catholic who attempted to skirt Canon Law in this way would be treated the same as a Latin Catholic who attempted to switch to an Eastern Catholic Church to skirt Canon Law and get ordained as a married man, he would be denied ordination.
No its not the same thing. If the latin bishop and the eastern bishop both agreed, what would be the problem? Its not like he is changing religions. Now the actual possibility that the two bishops would give consent is extremely small.
 
No its not the same thing. If the latin bishop and the eastern bishop both agreed, what would be the problem? Its not like he is changing religions. Now the actual possibility that the two bishops would give consent is extremely small.
Again, running in circles.

It is the same, it is the attempt to get around Canon Law. The Eastern Churches do not exist so that a Latin Catholic can find a loop hole in Canon Law to do as he wishes rather then being obedient to the Church and God.
 
The problem with the permanent diaconate is that there is this stigma against them in the traditional TLM parishes that I am attracted to.
And you don’t think this same sitgma would be present for a married priest?
 
notredame_999;7124596:
The problem with the permanent diaconate is that there is this stigma against them in the traditional TLM parishes that I am attracted to.
And you don’t think this same sitgma would be present for a married priest?
The shame of it is that the “stigma” on the “permanent” diaconate is two-fold: in some cases it’s self-induced, meaning that many “permanent” deacons would rather walk through quicksand than have anything to do with the EF, while in other cases it’s imposed, meaning that the hard-line TLM right-wing would rather walk through quicksand than have anything to do with a “permanent” deacon, the deacon’s position on the EF notwithstanding.
 
Heh, I didn’t say anyone would or even could do a ‘back door’ method of getting married and ordained. It’s just my response to those who say "There have always been married Roman Catholic priests(!!!)"

** … But not mentioning that they are already-married converts. **

That seems to be the route. You just have to contrive to be born an Anglican, say, then become a married minister, then convert, then be given conditional ordination. Easy! 🙂
  1. I don’t think anyone here has said there have “always” been married Roman Catholic priests. The influx of married men is recent.
  2. It would appear you have never heard the conversion stories from any of them. “Easy” was not a word in the dictionary they were using. Hard, long, difficult, scary, and any number of other adjectives could be and have been used. What each of them has had to give up in order to convert makes for stories of the awesome and profound request that God has made of them, and an awesome story of their sacrifice. Your flippant response is unworthy of someone who talks so freely of sacrifice.
Whether or not you are in favor of or adamantly opposed to any married man being ordained, you should read the conversion stories - even one of them - of these men. You, who talk so glibly of sacrifice, might actually have to contemplate what God has demanded of them, and how they responded.
 
No its not the same thing. If the latin bishop and the eastern bishop both agreed, what would be the problem? Its not like he is changing religions. Now the actual possibility that the two bishops would give consent is extremely small.
From everything I have seen and heard, it may be a possibility, but that is onoly a theoretical possibility, if that. The reality is that the Eastern rites are beyond any definition of hesitant when it comes to rite shopping.
 
The shame of it is that the “stigma” on the “permanent” diaconate is two-fold: in some cases it’s self-induced, meaning that many “permanent” deacons would rather walk through quicksand than have anything to do with the EF, while in other cases it’s imposed, meaning that the hard-line TLM right-wing would rather walk through quicksand than have anything to do with a “permanent” deacon, the deacon’s position on the EF notwithstanding.
Ah, yes. Seems there was a comment in the OT about the “stiff-necked” Israelites. It would appear that the human condition has not changed much in the last few thousand years.
 
  1. I don’t think anyone here has said there have “always” been married Roman Catholic priests. The influx of married men is recent.
There have been EC priests serving the Roman Rite since the union of the Ethiopian Catholic Church… and the Ethiopians do allow married men in the priesthood. (Most of the Ethiopian Catholic Church are biritual Ethiopian/Roman.)
 
There have been EC priests serving the Roman Rite since the union of the Ethiopian Catholic Church… and the Ethiopians do allow married men in the priesthood. (Most of the Ethiopian Catholic Church are biritual Ethiopian/Roman.)
There you go, muddying up the waters!:extrahappy: I am not that familiar with the Ethiopian Catholic Church; I have heard some discussion that put the Maronite rite in the Western Church.

However, I suspect that any married priests serving the Roman rite in the above-noted issue are first Ethiopian rite and that the bi-ritual status comes in second in terms of serving the Roman rite. The only bi-ritual priest I know currently is Roman rite, and bi-ritual in the Ruthinian rite. And not married.

My comment to Layman was that the Roman rite did not have married priests since the discipline was finally settled somewhere around 1000 AD until quite recently. Bi-rituals from an EC Church would not fit what I think he was referring to.
 
  1. I don’t think anyone here has said there have “always” been married Roman Catholic priests. The influx of married men is recent.
[Looks it up] Sorry, it was said that there have always been married Catholic priests. But it’s an easy mistake to make. I regard it as an attempt to fudge the issue. *“Have there been any married Catholic priests? Then let’s have married Roman Catholic ones.” *

I doubt the reverse would wash with Eastern Catholics.* “Is X the norm in the Roman Catholic Church? Then it should also be in Eastern Catholic Churches”. *

[Edit] Pretty good article here. Seems celibacy is normal for over 1500 years, if I read it right.
  1. It would appear you have never heard the conversion stories from any of them. “Easy” was not a word in the dictionary they were using. Hard, long, difficult, scary, and any number of other adjectives could be and have been used. …
Hmm, perhaps I should have added the tag [irony] after my last post, but I thought it was fairly obvious.
 
the hard-line TLM right-wing would rather walk through quicksand than have anything to do with a “permanent” deacon, the deacon’s position on the EF notwithstanding.
I think we/they are just tired of the post-60’s experimentation. Permanent deacons are a ‘revivial’ or novelty, aren’t they? There’s enough to do getting an old rite Mass going in a parish, also. I don’t think a permanent deacon would be useful or necessary in such a circumstance, anyway(?)
 
I have heard some discussion that put the Maronite rite in the Western Church.
I’ve no idea where you may have heard that, but wherever it was and whoever said it, it’s wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top