Doctrine & Discipline

[BirdandBee]

I’m a Catholic who’s recently been having some trouble with a few Catholic practices (I saw a similar thread here, but I did not want to hijack it).

Those practices are:

1. Priestly celibacy (while it is often justified by Scripture, it is not a truly ancient practice and priests marrying was acceptable for hundreds of years with no problem. The reasons for the change are hopelessly outdated, and I think it does more harm than good.)
2. Marking the forehead with ash on Ash Wednesday. (This may seem a small thing but it is a direct contradiction of Mt 6:16-18: When you fast, do not act like the Pharisees with a sad look, for they disfigure their faces, so that every one knows that they are fasting. Yet I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, brush your hair, and wash your face, that you appear not to be fasting, but to your father which is in secret only. And your father, which sees, will reward you openly.)

The whole distinction between doctrine and discipline seems fuzzy to me. Aren’t the two inextricably linked? Doesn’t a mistake in one reflect the other?

 

[Gumbercules]

I’m a Catholic who’s recently been having some trouble with a few Catholic practices (I saw a similar thread here, but I did not want to hijack it).

Those practices are:

1. Priestly celibacy (while it is often justified by Scripture, it is not a truly ancient practice and priests marrying was acceptable for hundreds of years with no problem. The reasons for the change are hopelessly outdated, and I think it does more harm than good.)
2. Marking the forehead with ash on Ash Wednesday. (This may seem a small thing but it is a direct contradiction of Mt 6:16-18: When you fast, do not act like the Pharisees with a sad look, for they disfigure their faces, so that every one knows that they are fasting. Yet I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, brush your hair, and wash your face, that you appear not to be fasting, but to your father which is in secret only. And your father, which sees, will reward you openly.)

The whole distinction between doctrine and discipline seems fuzzy to me. Aren’t the two inextricably linked? Doesn’t a mistake in one reflect the other?

I guess a doctrine is something that cannot be changed. A discipline is something that is subject to change over time. Priestly Celibacy is a discipline because Priests at one time were allowed and even encouraged to be married. The Latin Rite mandates that the priests be celibate, lets hope that changes soon! The Eastern Catholic Rites allow their priests to be married and the Eastern Orthodox encourage it.

 

[fermat]

I guess a doctrine is something that cannot be changed. A discipline is something that is subject to change over time. Priestly Celibacy is a discipline because Priests at one time were allowed and even encouraged to be married. The Latin Rite mandates that the priests be celibate, lets hope that changes soon! The Eastern Catholic Rites allow their priests to be married and the Eastern Orthodox encourage it.

He is as flexible as Gumby and as strong as Hercules!
-Gumercules? I love that guy!

Anywho, on with the show:

Gumercules hit it on the head. As Catholics and society changes, different means are needed to help address current issues. Pre-Vatican II, you could not eat meat on any Friday. Now it is only during Lent. The sacrifice of meat became less meaningful as meat was more available, so the Church changed that discipline (though I am sure there are many other reasons…)

I do the samething with my kids. For my seven year old, sitting in the naughty square for a punishment and offering a lollipop for a reward just doesn’t cut it anymore, so my wife and I changed our approach. It still works great for the two year old. That is all the Church is doing.

 

[ricko]

I’m a Catholic who’s recently been having some trouble with a few Catholic practices (I saw a similar thread here, but I did not want to hijack it).

Those practices are:

1. Priestly celibacy (while it is often justified by Scripture, it is not a truly ancient practice and priests marrying was acceptable for hundreds of years with no problem. The reasons for the change are hopelessly outdated, and I think it does more harm than good.)

Remember, the Church is not part of the world and does not keep up with current trends and fads. As you already know the Scripture I won’t requote it but doesn’t scripture carry any weight with you? If the Church changed as ever single individual wanted it, the priests would be married and with a family (which YOU must support!), there would be same sex marriages, gay priests and bishops, women priests and so forth. Isn’t it nice to know that anytime you need a priest one is available? The one that’s married is always busy with his family (little league, soccer). Celibacy is a requirement no different than requirements you must meet to work for a corporation or join the Marines.

1. Marking the forehead with ash on Ash Wednesday. (This may seem a small thing but it is a direct contradiction of Mt 6:16-18: When you fast, do not act like the Pharisees with a sad look, for they disfigure their faces, so that every one knows that they are fasting. Yet I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, brush your hair, and wash your face, that you appear not to be fasting, but to your father which is in secret only. And your father, which sees, will reward you openly.)

Ash on your forehead is a far cry from what the Pharisees were doing. They liked to “Lord it over” everybody. I’ve never seen anyone do that on Ash Wednesday.

Following the example of the Nine vites, who did penance in sackcloth and ashes, our foreheads are marked with ashes to humble our hearts and reminds us that life passes away on Earth. We remember this when we are told

“Remember, Man is dust, and unto dust you shall return.”

Ashes are a symbol of penance made sacramental by the blessing of the Church, and they help us develop a spirit of humility and sacrifice.

The whole distinction between doctrine and discipline seems fuzzy to me. Aren’t the two inextricably linked? Doesn’t a mistake in one reflect the other?

There is no mistake in either. Discipline is just that but it can change. Doctrine on the other hand can never change. Example of a discipline changing is the requirement that women cover their heads, which by the way I miss. Example of Doctrine is the teaching of the requirement for Baptism. That cannot change. One is apples and the other is oranges

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m a Catholic who’s recently been having some trouble with a few Catholic practices (I saw a similar thread here, but I did not want to hijack it).

Those practices are:

1. Priestly celibacy (while it is often justified by Scripture, it is not a truly ancient practice and priests marrying was acceptable for hundreds of years with no problem. The reasons for the change are hopelessly outdated, and I think it does more harm than good.)
2. Marking the forehead with ash on Ash Wednesday. (This may seem a small thing but it is a direct contradiction of Mt 6:16-18: When you fast, do not act like the Pharisees with a sad look, for they disfigure their faces, so that every one knows that they are fasting. Yet I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, brush your hair, and wash your face, that you appear not to be fasting, but to your father which is in secret only. And your father, which sees, will reward you openly.)

The whole distinction between doctrine and discipline seems fuzzy to me. Aren’t the two inextricably linked? Doesn’t a mistake in one reflect the other?

1. The Church dosen’t think it does more harm than good, and judging by Protestant clergy problems, divorce rate, etc. It seems to be correct.
2. It’s of course NOT required of anyone to participate in Ash Wednesday Devotions. It does also seem to have it’s support in Scripture as well.

Discipline is man made Church law that is always reflective of Doctrine.

 

[diggerdomer]

1. Priestly celibacy (while it is often justified by Scripture, it is not a truly ancient practice and priests marrying was acceptable for hundreds of years with no problem. The reasons for the change are hopelessly outdated, and I think it does more harm than good.)

Celibacy is an ancient practice, but it is not essential to Catholic priesthood in general. Currently, in the Roman Rite, it is the norm (which of course means there are exceptions). It’s a discipline that could be changed any time.

1. Marking the forehead with ash on Ash Wednesday. (This may seem a small thing but it is a direct contradiction of Mt 6:16-18: When you fast, do not act like the Pharisees with a sad look, for they disfigure their faces, so that every one knows that they are fasting. Yet I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, brush your hair, and wash your face, that you appear not to be fasting, but to your father which is in secret only. And your father, which sees, will reward you openly.)

This practice does not contradict Scripture. Individuals who observe/practice this tradition may do so in contradiction to Scripture, but the rite itself does not.

 

[BirdandBee]

Remember, the Church is not part of the world and does not keep up with current trends and fads. As you already know the Scripture I won’t requote it but doesn’t scripture carry any weight with you?

As you may see by my second question, Scripture carries a lot of weight with me. What I find curious is people seeking to justify a changeable discipline like it was doctrine. Does it really need justification, if either approach could be valid?

If the Church changed as ever single individual wanted it, the priests would be married and with a family (which YOU must support!), there would be same sex marriages, gay priests and bishops, women priests and so forth. Isn’t it nice to know that anytime you need a priest one is available? The one that’s married is always busy with his family (little league, soccer). Celibacy is a requirement no different than requirements you must meet to work for a corporation or join the Marines.

This is a bit much, don’t you think? I’ve given no indication that I am supportive of gay priests marrying (in fact I find this rather repulsive) or that I am in favour of the Church remaking herself for every person or generation to draw in new members. This isn’t a question of bringing in totally new practices to make the Church more accessible, but of reinstituting a very ancient practice.

So ‘burning with passion’ would not be a distraction or drawback, in your view? Not everyone is capable of celibacy, as St. Paul points out. His requirements are that you’re an upright man of one wife, not that you’re completely abstinent. I understand this is the Church’s decision. I am not questioning the practice’s validity. But I wonder if it is the best approach.

This practice does not contradict Scripture. Individuals who observe/practice this tradition may do so in contradiction to Scripture, but the rite itself does not.

While this is a fascinating explanation, it only really works if Christ had simply commanded people to not be vain and show off when fasting. But he also tells them not to indulge in outward signs by which others would know they are fasting. Your explanation works on an individual basis, but it’s more difficult to pull with an entire institution, because regardless of the purpose of the individuals, the institution itself is sanctioning something Christ specifically forbade.

 

[paperwight]

1. It’s of course NOT required of anyone to participate in Ash Wednesday Devotions. It does also seem to have it’s support in Scripture as well.

.

The dissonance between walking round with the ashes on the forehead, and the clear Gospel mandate about not making obvious one’s acts of piety has always bothered me, too.

It seems to me that it was one thing to wear the ashes when everyone else was i.e. it was a communal act, reinforcing and strengthening others. There was no danger of being ‘holier than thou’, because ‘thou’ was being equally ‘holy’.

Nowadays, however, when ash-wearers are very much in the minority, there is a very real danger of scandalising others, who could point to that very passage in the Gospel.

It seems to me that the solution is to receive the ashes, but then wipe them off before going out in public.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The dissonance between walking round with the ashes on the forehead, and the clear Gospel mandate about not making obvious one’s acts of piety has always bothered me, too.

It seems to me that it was one thing to wear the ashes when everyone else was i.e. it was a communal act, reinforcing and strengthening others. There was no danger of being ‘holier than thou’, because ‘thou’ was being equally ‘holy’.

Nowadays, however, when ash-wearers are very much in the minority, there is a very real danger of scandalising others, who could point to that very passage in the Gospel.

It seems to me that the solution is to receive the ashes, but then wipe them off before going out in public.

Or receive the ashes and accept the stares, laughs, comments and snide remarks with humility, or go to an evening service to receive the ashes.

 

[paperwight]

Or receive the ashes and accept the stares, laughs, comments and snide remarks with humility, or go to an evening service to receive the ashes.

If that remark is addressed to me, you do me an injustice, Bro. Rich.

I am quite prepared to accept any snide remarks, mockery etc. for the sake of my Faith.

What I am not prepared to do is cause scandal to another, and put anyone off being a Catholic - or at least of being favourably disposed.

I am a convert, from a strongly Protestant family. I have heard the charge (among many others, worshipping statues and the like) of ‘parading around wearing ashes, even though it quite clearly states in the Bible… etc’. too often to be oblivious to the bad impression it gives.

AIso I have read in that same Bible the awful words of Our Lord about causing scandal, and of our responsibility to others, lest we be cast into the deep with a millstone around our neck.

Do not be so quick to impute bad motives, if you please. Some of us don’t believe in clumping around in hobnailed boots when it comes to dealing with non-Catholics.

 

[Sr_Sally]

The dissonance between walking round with the ashes on the forehead, and the clear Gospel mandate about not making obvious one’s acts of piety has always bothered me, too.

It seems to me that it was one thing to wear the ashes when everyone else was i.e. it was a communal act, reinforcing and strengthening others. There was no danger of being ‘holier than thou’, because ‘thou’ was being equally ‘holy’.

Nowadays, however, when ash-wearers are very much in the minority, there is a very real danger of scandalising others, who could point to that very passage in the Gospel.

It seems to me that the solution is to receive the ashes, but then wipe them off before going out in public.

Just as we are not required to receive ashes, we are not required to keep them on all day. You can certainly wipe them off if keeping them on will cause more scandal. In the past few years, my schedule has been such that we don’t attend Mass on Ash Wednesday until the evening so usually we go straight home afterwards and no one sees us in ashes. That does not make the significance of the action less. The purpose is our rememberance that we are indeed “dust and to dust you shall return”. We can be affected by that knowledge without showing our ashes to anyone else.

 

[Sr_Sally]

1. The Church dosen’t think it does more harm than good, and judging by Protestant clergy problems, divorce rate, etc. It seems to be correct.

I agree with this. I personally know of 2 different divorces of protestant (Lutheran) clergy and the horrible upheaveal and pain they caused the congregations. In each case, the ripple effects were enough to cause people to loose their faith and turn their backs on God. What a terrible burden for anyone struggling in their marriage to bear! And in one case the couple were both clergy with 2 different congregations so the trouble was multiplied.

And if the arguement is the married priests would allow more men to seek ordination, remember that mainline protestant denominations(whose clergy have responsibilities most similar to priests), there is also a vocation crisis and they are also closing and consolidating churches.

 

[David_Zampino]

Just a few thoughts . . .

***Dogma ***is fixed and unchangeable.

***Doctrine ***can develop in a forward direction (Cardinal Newman).

***Discipline ***can be changed to meet circumstances of time and place.

The issue of a celibate priesthood in the Latin rite is a matter of discipline. As someone else has pointed out, it is the norm, which means there are exceptions. Could the Vatican change this discipline? Yes. Is it likely to do so? I seriously doubt it, at least certainly not in great numbers.

I also wish to agree with Sr. Sally on the struggles one can find within the married clergy. During my seminary years at Nashotah House, prior to my conversion, I discerned that the marital situations of some of my fellow students were WONDERFUL arguments for clerical celibacy! But seriously, though, clergy divorce can really damage a congregation (to say nothing of the clergy family!)

 

[Evan]

1. Marking the forehead with ash on Ash Wednesday. (This may seem a small thing but it is a direct contradiction of Mt 6:16-18: When you fast, do not act like the Pharisees with a sad look, for they disfigure their faces, so that every one knows that they are fasting. Yet I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, brush your hair, and wash your face, that you appear not to be fasting, but to your father which is in secret only. And your father, which sees, will reward you openly.)

I’ve always related the Sealing with Ashes as relating to Rev 7:2-3

And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

It is not the ashes that are important, but the Cross. For you are sealed with the Sign of the Cross ( + ) on the forehead. Marked as one of the servants of God.

 

[BirdandBee]

What I am not prepared to do is cause scandal to another, and put anyone off being a Catholic - or at least of being favourably disposed.

I am a convert, from a strongly Protestant family. I have heard the charge (among many others, worshipping statues and the like) of ‘parading around wearing ashes, even though it quite clearly states in the Bible… etc’. too often to be oblivious to the bad impression it gives.

Just as we are not required to receive ashes, we are not required to keep them on all day. You can certainly wipe them off if keeping them on will cause more scandal. In the past few years, my schedule has been such that we don’t attend Mass on Ash Wednesday until the evening so usually we go straight home afterwards and no one sees us in ashes. That does not make the significance of the action less. The purpose is our rememberance that we are indeed “dust and to dust you shall return”. We can be affected by that knowledge without showing our ashes to anyone else.

Thank you both. These two posts have settled the matter for me.

Still not sure about priestly celibacy though.

 

[diggerdomer]

Remember, the Church is not part of the world and does not keep up with current trends and fads. As you already know the Scripture I won’t requote it but doesn’t scripture carry any weight with you? If the Church changed as ever single individual wanted it, the priests would be married and with a family (which YOU must support!), there would be same sex marriages, gay priests and bishops, women priests and so forth. Isn’t it nice to know that anytime you need a priest one is available? The one that’s married is always busy with his family (little league, soccer). Celibacy is a requirement no different than requirements you must meet to work for a corporation or join the Marines.

But there are married priests, and gay clergy.

I disagree, I think celibacy is a very different requirement than those needed to work for a corporation or to be in the military.

 

[neophyte]

I’m a Catholic who’s recently been having some trouble with a few Catholic practices (I saw a similar thread here, but I did not want to hijack it).

Those practices are:

1. Priestly celibacy (while it is often justified by Scripture, it is not a truly ancient practice and priests marrying was acceptable for hundreds of years with no problem. The reasons for the change are hopelessly outdated, and I think it does more harm than good.)…

Actually, priestly celibacy is a truly ancient practice, and although since the beginning it’s been possible for a married man to be ordained a priest it’s never been that a priest was allowed to marry.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If that remark is addressed to me, you do me an injustice, Bro. Rich.

I am quite prepared to accept any snide remarks, mockery etc. for the sake of my Faith.

What I am not prepared to do is cause scandal to another, and put anyone off being a Catholic - or at least of being favourably disposed.

I am a convert, from a strongly Protestant family. I have heard the charge (among many others, worshipping statues and the like) of ‘parading around wearing ashes, even though it quite clearly states in the Bible… etc’. too often to be oblivious to the bad impression it gives.

AIso I have read in that same Bible the awful words of Our Lord about causing scandal, and of our responsibility to others, lest we be cast into the deep with a millstone around our neck.

Do not be so quick to impute bad motives, if you please. Some of us don’t believe in clumping around in hobnailed boots when it comes to dealing with non-Catholics.

My comment was not directed at anyone. Just that most of the time having them on is not a statement of “Look at me”, it’s a minor cross most of the time.

 

[ricko]

diggerdomer; But there are married priests, and gay clergy.

I disagree, I think celibacy is a very different requirement than those needed to work for a corporation or to be in the military

There are exceptions to the celibacy rule of course. The Church has accepted many from other religions for example that are married.
As to gay clergy. As the Church teaches, it is not a sin to be a homosexual. It is a sin to practice it. This applies to laity as well as clergy.

Almost all organizations have requirements that must be met in order to become a member/employee. Of course the requirements differ from one to the other. The organization has the right to impose any requirement they deem necessary. This can be a certain type of education, marital status (must be single), dependents, physical (health, height, weight) and the requirement to pass any test put forward by the organization. The Church is no different except it is a religious organization.

 

[diggerdomer]

There are exceptions to the celibacy rule of course. The Church has accepted many from other religions for example that are married.
As to gay clergy. As the Church teaches, it is not a sin to be a homosexual. It is a sin to practice it. This applies to laity as well as clergy.

Almost all organizations have requirements that must be met in order to become a member/employee. Of course the requirements differ from one to the other. The organization has the right to impose any requirement they deem necessary. This can be a certain type of education, marital status (must be single), dependents, physical (health, height, weight) and the requirement to pass any test put forward by the organization. The Church is no different except it is a religious organization.

Catholics have always had married priests. The Eastern Rites maintain that tradition today, not as an exception. It’s only an exception, currently, in the Latin Rite, following the time when it became a rule for Roman Catholic priests.

The Church is very different, when talking ordination. You can’t “quit” and go find a new “job.” Ordination imparts an ontological change. No job I know of does that.