Continence in the Early Church

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Daily Divine Liturgy is not the norm in the East, and, from what I understand, is a modern Latinization (perhaps not a bad one since many Eastern monastic mystics encouraged daily reception of the Eucharist when possible).

 

[Norseman82]

So, what do you, my fellow forum members, think about this topic?

It depends.

 

[jack63]

I thought about the video further. No doubt I like what Abbot Nicholas said, but I think he said some things that many Roman Rite Catholics won’t like much at all…

For example, he makes an interesting point that the idea of a clerical state of a priest is not all that well defined in the new testament while the clerical states of Deacons and Bishops are actually well defined in the new testament. I’ve found this to be true as I’ve read the new testament. He even (to paraphrase) says that priests are just kind of standing in place for the Bishop. The thing is this idea is going to be DOA in many roman rite communities. Take for examples the Jesuits…their charism is of a priestly society. Imagine telling a Jesuit he is just “filling in” for a Bishop. That notion will be DOA.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

He even (to paraphrase) says that priests are just kind of standing in place for the Bishop.

I think it’s historical fact that Latin Church acknowledges. Priest does not celebrate licitly without Bishop. However, since Priest acts in Persona Christi it also makes point somewhat moot, because either way it is Christ who effectively celebrates Sacraments, not the Priest nor the Bishop. But Priest can only do that through what Bishop has bestowed upon him and Priest does it as Apostles did it.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

He even (to paraphrase) says that priests are just kind of standing in place for the Bishop. The thing is this idea is going to be DOA in many roman rite communities. Take for examples the Jesuits…their charism is of a priestly society. Imagine telling a Jesuit he is just “filling in” for a Bishop. That notion will be DOA.

I try not to imagine myself telling a Jesuit anything…they seem to be pretty good at forming their own opinions

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I thought maybe the Mass went on for so long that people were peeing in their pants!

 

[Norseman82]

I thought maybe the Mass went on for so long that people were peeing in their pants!

That adds a whole new meaning to the song “I saw water flowing…”

 

[jack63]

jack63:

He even (to paraphrase) says that priests are just kind of standing in place for the Bishop.

I think it’s historical fact that Latin Church acknowledges. Priest does not celebrate licitly without Bishop. However, since Priest acts in Persona Christi it also makes point somewhat moot, because either way it is Christ who effectively celebrates Sacraments, not the Priest nor the Bishop. But Priest can only do that through what Bishop has bestowed upon him and Priest does it as Apostles did it.

Yes this is of course correct; however, in the Jesuits as in most other religious orders in the Roman Rite, the only Bishop the Jesuits formally “report to” is the Pope. It a cultural issue or an issue of tradition. That is my point.

Some of the questioners are (to paraphrase) asking “How do we counter progressives’ arguments to allow for married priests?” His response (to paraphrase again) is basically traditionalist’s arguments against married priests are glib…shallow. Progressive find the holes to punch through on the subject of married priests because there are in fact many holes. He seems to go on to say traditionalists need to go much deeper into this and significantly rethink their arguments. This is going to be hard for the Roman Rite without rethinking their tradition to some degree.

 

[dochawk]

Imagine telling a Jesuit he is just “filling in” for a Bishop.

Sure, they’ll be fine with that.

But they’re all filling in for that same bishop . . .

:crazy_face:

There’s a reason they’re sometimes called, “the Pope’s Marines” . . .