Celibacy

[RyanL]

The Iambic Pen:

Does anyone here know anything about the Celtic Church?

I have never heard of them, but here’s some info I found…

Webpage of the Celtic Catholic Church which relates their preported history.

Vatican document which claims the following about “Celtic Christianity”

Some of the traditions which flow into New Age are: ancient Egyptian occult practices, Cabbalism, early Christian gnosticism, Sufism, the lore of the Druids, Celtic Christianity, mediaeval alchemy, Renaissance hermeticism, Zen Buddhism, Yoga and so on.

I don’t think I have to tell you what the Church thinks about New Age ideas.

In reading the first link, it seems like Apostolic Succession was broken (if it ever existed), and some folks just “decided” to be the Celtic Catholic Church. Without Apostolic Succession, however, there is no Eucharist, which means it’s neither Catholic nor a Church, no matter what they claim. As for the “Early Church”, please read the The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy, which is another Vatican document which describes both the practices of the Early Church, the theology behind the discipline, and how things developed in light of the biblical foundations.

BTW, how is your journey going? Any RCIA classes offered nearby?

Go Navy, Beat Army!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[bones_IV]

BluegrassJimmie:

Someone mentioned in another thread that celibacy was a discipline, not a doctrine. Have there been priests, bishops, or Popes who were married?

Why, now, does it seem as though it is doctrine to be celibate?

That person is actually right in saying that more than one Pope was married but celibacy was still the rule. But, as time went on, celibacy became the norm in the west. Married priests is a possibility. But there are some problems with it. There are cases in which kids who come from a family with married clergy, were neglected and abused.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bones_IV:

Married priests is a possibility. But there are some problems with it. There are cases in which kids who come from a family with married clergy, were neglected and abused.

What a bunch of biased garbage.

There are a whole lot more kids who are neglected from lay families.

 

[RyanL]

I will have to side with ByzCath on this one! I’m not impressed.

 

[otm]

RyanL:

Priests of the Eastern Rites can be married (well…they have to be married prior to ordination, otherwise they remain celibate). Additionally, there are at least 80 modern day Latin Rite (Roman Catholic, proper) priests who are married with Papal Dispensations. Mostly, these come from married Protestant clergy who convert and are ordained priests.

It’s not a doctrine - it could change tomorrow, if B-16 so desired. In practice, however, this is a much more theologically sound to have a priest (who is there to be the representative of Christ in the flesh) be celibate. Think about it - who was Christ’s bride? The Church! Who is the bride of a priest? The Church!

Make sense?

God bless,
RyanL

I think with 2000 years of married clergy in the Eastern rites, that we could perhaps say something other than that it is an issue of theological soundness? I really don’t think you mean to say that the Eastern rites are much less theologiaclly sound, but that is how it comes across.

Celibacy is a charism, and as such is separate from the sacrament of Ordination. Some have the cahrism, some don’t. there are sound theological principles for celibacy, but I would hestiate to say they are much more theologically sound. Some are called, some are not.

 

[TNT]

CARose:

TNT,

Perhaps you want to start another thread to deal with the questions you have. They don’t seem to apply to the topic of this thread.

CARose

Actually, they Drill, step by step, right to the heart of the matter.

 

[steve_b]

RyanL:

In practice, however, this is a much more theologically sound to have a priest (who is there to be the representative of Christ in the flesh) be celibate. Think about it - who was Christ’s bride? The Church! Who is the bride of a priest? The Church!
**

ByzCath:

This is totally insensitive and offensive to not only the married priest in the Latin Church but to the totality of the Byzantine rite, not to mention wrong.

Paul makes the following point.

1 Cor 7:
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

38So then, he who marries does right, but he who does not marry does even better.

Theologically speaking, Paul would therefor say, carrying his point forward, the married priest does good but his devotion to the Lord’s work is divided. The unmarried priest does even better because his devotion to the Lord’s work is undivided. And as Paul says, he wants people living in a right way, in undivided devotion to the Lord

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

RyanL:

I have never heard of them, but here’s some info I found…

Well, the history outlined on that page is the same as I had heard. I guess one could say that Celtic Christianity sort of broke away from Catholicism due to geography, not theology. Of course, it appears that this separation from the rest of Christianity did lead to differences in theology over time. At any rate, I’m not sure how verifiable the Joseph of Arimathea legend is, though I suppose it is possible. I don’t know if anyone here has read anything by Stephen R. Lawhead (most known for the Pendragon Cycle), but he seems to have a high view of the Celtic Church. Of course, he also writes fiction, so it’s hard to know how much is from history and how much is from his own imagination.

Anyway, the modern “Celtic Catholic Church,” as they call themselves, seems to be a bit on the fringe, but I suppose they’re closer to Catholicism than most Protestants…

I don’t think I have to tell you what the Church thinks about New Age ideas.

And you’re certainly not going to hear any argument from me against the Church on this.

As for the “Early Church”, please read the The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy, which is another Vatican document which describes both the practices of the Early Church, the theology behind the discipline, and how things developed in light of the biblical foundations.

Thanks for the link!

BTW, how is your journey going? Any RCIA classes offered nearby?

Not so far as I know, as I’m on an Army camp in Iraq. Still, I’m planning to go to Mass tomorrow, schedule permitting.

Go Navy, Beat Army!

Well, I’m not a West Pointer, so you can say that all you want…

 

[bones_IV]

ByzCath:

What a bunch of biased garbage.

There are a whole lot more kids who are neglected from lay families.

I disagree,
Father John Echert “Ancient Tradition records that the Apostles–Saint Peter included–abstained from marital relations once called by the Lord. So if we are to draw from the examples of the Apostles, I wonder what sort of women will be looking to become the wives of priests, and how many priests will look for marriage, under that condition. Furthermore, every response I have thus far recieved on this topic which favors married clergy FAILS to address that our Lord, High Priest and source of all New Testament priesthood, was himself a celibate PRIEST. Anything less is a compromise. Marriage is a vocation, and the priesthood is a vocation, and while there are compelling reasons against mixing them, I have yet to hear of a compelling reason to join them.”

Dr. Geraghty " Who said that christian marriage is easy or the only normal way to live."
“There is a radical crises of faith today which rejects the chastity of marriage, let alone a celibate clergy.”

Anthony Dragoni "Eastern Catholics must stay out of the celibacy debate in the Latin Church. The Latin Church is its own Church and wouldn’t appreciate us meddling in their affairs any more than we would appreciate them meddling in our affairs.

Why are bishops celibate in the Eastern Church? This rule has been in force for us since the council of Trullo in the seventh century. In our theology, the person most fully configured to Christ is not the priest, but the monk. Thus, it has traditionally been for all bishops to be monks in the east."

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bones_IV:

I disagree,
Father John Echert “Ancient Tradition records that the Apostles–Saint Peter included–abstained from marital relations once called by the Lord. So if we are to draw from the examples of the Apostles, I wonder what sort of women will be looking to become the wives of priests, and how many priests will look for marriage, under that condition. Furthermore, every response I have thus far recieved on this topic which favors married clergy FAILS to address that our Lord, High Priest and source of all New Testament priesthood, was himself a celibate PRIEST. Anything less is a compromise. Marriage is a vocation, and the priesthood is a vocation, and while there are compelling reasons against mixing them, I have yet to hear of a compelling reason to join them.”

Yes this is one school of thought within the Church, but as it has not been infallibly procalimed, it is open to debate and I just do not agree with it.

Lets see some proof.

Dr. Geraghty " Who said that christian marriage is easy or the only normal way to live."
“There is a radical crises of faith today which rejects the chastity of marriage, let alone a celibate clergy.”

And? What does this have to do with anything? Besides being offensive to not only the married priests already in the Latin Church, but to those of us Eastern Churches who are restoring our traditions.

Anthony Dragoni "Eastern Catholics must stay out of the celibacy debate in the Latin Church. The Latin Church is its own Church and wouldn’t appreciate us meddling in their affairs any more than we would appreciate them meddling in our affairs.

I personally know Mr Dragoni, he is a theologian. I happen to agree with him to a point. When I do speak up it is only when those in the debate in the Latin Church try to show that celibacy is some how superior, as it is not. To say it is, is to say that somehow those traditions who have retained the ancient practice of a married clergy are somehow defecient.

It is insulting and ignorant.

Why are bishops celibate in the Eastern Church? This rule has been in force for us since the council of Trullo in the seventh century. In our theology, the person most fully configured to Christ is not the priest, but the monk. Thus, it has traditionally been for all bishops to be monks in the east."

Because they are drawn from the monastics.

Our bishops have not always been drawn from the monastics. There was a time before monasticism arouse.

I am not arguing for the married priesthood in the Latin Church. I understand the reasons for it, especially the fact that you state, that it is the priest who is most fully configured to Christ. What I find strange though, is that the Holy Father has allowed married priests with in the Church there by diluting this argument.

What I am arguing against is as I stated above. The argument that somehow celibacy is superior. As well as the petty arguments against a married priesthood, such as have been made here (the comment about neglecting children) and the issues raised that a married priest can not truely be a priest as he has a family.

Those arguments belittle our traditions, which are fully Catholic, and show a willful disregard of anything not Latin.

 

[bones_IV]

Here’s another one.

Father Bob Levis 06-21-05

“Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than canonical studies indicate, i.e. back to the second century. Even in the East it was more widespread than we realize up till now. In the East, it wasn’t until the 7th century that we have a parting in the ways. Even today Monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In spite of the many periods and weak faith and consequently clerical failures, still the policy, the ideal, the history, the goal of the Priesthood is celibacy.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bones_IV:

Here’s another one.

Father Bob Levis 06-21-05

“Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than canonical studies indicate, i.e. back to the second century. Even in the East it was more widespread than we realize up till now. In the East, it wasn’t until the 7th century that we have a parting in the ways. Even today Monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In spite of the many periods and weak faith and consequently clerical failures, still the policy, the ideal, the history, the goal of the Priesthood is celibacy.”

Well I see that you have no intention of discussion on this matter so I will end it here but will add one final thing, Fr Levis is Latin so of course his views on the East really mean nothing.

I have no clue what he means when he says “Even today Monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood” as the monasteries only have a couple of priests within them as our monastics are not based on the priesthood. Especially in North America were I can count the number of Eastern monasteries on one hand.

 

[StCsDavid]

There were many priests, bishops, and even a few popes who have been married. Right now the Roman Rite only accepts men who are willing to practice the discipline of celibacy. I suppose if there ever came a time when the Church could not find enough men willing to practice this discipline it might adopt a stance similar to our brothers in the in Eastern Rite, but so far that hasn’t been necessary. Enrollment in seminaries is picking up in the US. Also, remember that the United States represents only a small fraction of the entire Roman Catholic population. Finally, I’ve heard several priests and religious talk about this issue, and when they rank the difficulties they face, remaining chaste is not at the top of their list. Obedience seems to be a bigger challenge then staying chaste.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

StCsDavid:

There were many priests, bishops, and even a few popes who have been married. Right now the Roman Rite only accepts men who are willing to practice the discipline of celibacy.

This is incorrect.

The men that Rome has accepted, those converts who are married that they have approved the ordination of, are not bound to be celibate.

 

[StCsDavid]

Excellent point…I was thinking only of the most common way men enter the priesthood. I do believe that if the spouse of one of these married priests dies, he is then expected to live a chaste life. In other words he is not free to re-marry.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

StCsDavid:

Excellent point…I was thinking only of the most common way men enter the priesthood. I do believe that if the spouse of one of these married priests dies, he is then expected to live a chaste life. In other words he is not free to re-marry.

That is correct, even for us Byzantines who have a married priesthood.

This is also what would be expected of a deacon who’s wife dies.

 

[bones_IV]

ByzCath:

Well I see that you have no intention of discussion on this matter so I will end it here but will add one final thing, Fr Levis is Latin so of course his views on the East really mean nothing.

I have no clue what he means when he says “Even today Monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood” as the monasteries only have a couple of priests within them as our monastics are not based on the priesthood. Especially in North America were I can count the number of Eastern monasteries on one hand.

I find Father Bob Levis to be a very reliable source of information.

 

[Church_Militant]

This issue has been beat up before in threads like This one