If the Holy Father grants a rescript reducing a deacon to the lay state, then that cleric is never again to function or present himself as a deacon and a bishop would be wholly wrong to disregard the rescript without recourse to and a favorable resolution from the Holy See.For deacons, not necessarily. It would be up to the Bishop.
Let’s say for a moment that I accept your premise that clerical continence is of apostolic origin. I must ask the question: So what? We live in different times and we have long since abandoned many disciplines that were practiced at the time of the apostles. According to your figures, the Eastern Churches abandoned the idea of clerical continence in marriage nearly1400 years ago. How long since we abandoned public confession and the order of penitents? Years-long penance? How do our modern-day fasting practices compare to apostolic time and how many times have they been modified over the centuries? The Latin Church used leavened bread for the Eucharist for hundreds of years before using unleavened bread. The earliest use - the apostolic use - appears to have been leavened bread.Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. Their Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline.
No-one is arguing that it can’t; the question is whether it should.Let’s say for a moment that I accept your premise that clerical continence is of apostolic origin. I must ask the question: So what? We live in different times and we have long since abandoned many disciplines that were practiced at the time of the apostles. According to your figures, the Eastern Churches abandoned the idea of clerical continence in marriage nearly1400 years ago. How long since we abandoned public confession and the order of penitents? Years-long penance? How do our modern-day fasting practices compare to apostolic time and how many times have they been modified over the centuries? The Latin Church used leavened bread for the Eucharist for hundreds of years before using unleavened bread. The earliest use - the apostolic use - appears to have been leavened bread.
The Church has the power to change these matters and has done so many, many times throughout history.
Why should they, since that is totally beside the point? Focus on post #58:babochka #60
While neither of these constitute official teaching, these accounts are certainly compelling evidence that early Christians did not have a problem with the concept of St. Peter having a wife and children.
As not even the Popes are here recognised to write with authority – any fancy rules. The false ideas still rule some, even after the great scholarly studies have been cited.His is certainly a voice worth listening to when forming an opinion about the subject, but he does not speak with the authority of the Church.
Take the time to get the facts – confirmation in post #58:This was a local council and did not apply to the entire Church, but it certainly does speak to a very early practice of clerical continence, at least in some regions.
Why in creation do people insist on saying that anyone who thinks married men should be allowed to be ordained, is thereby **in favor of changing away from celibacy?No-one is arguing that it can’t; the question is whether it should.
And none of the arguments in favor of changing away from
Celibacy (for the Roman church) are all that compelling.
ICXC NIKA
You nailed the whole matter right there - it is a discipline. And discipline is subject to modification and/or change.Why should they, since that is totally beside the point? Focus on post #58:
**“….the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms **(that) the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”, and cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…estly-celibacy
As not even the Popes are here recognised to write with authority – any fancy rules. The false ideas still rule some, even after the great scholarly studies have been cited.
Take the time to get the facts – confirmation in post #58:
The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (Ad *Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).
This was the Apostolic Norm for the whole Church.
The inability to focus on papal confirmation of the discipline seems endemic in some, whether Catholic or otherwise.
Thank you. Now see why the normative discipline will NOT be changed by the Magisterium.Otjm #66
You nailed the whole matter right there - it is a discipline. And discipline is subject to modification and/or change.
And what everyone ignores about that is that married priests were supposed to live as brothers and sisters with their wives, which was the far older rule and tradition. The mandate for celibacy fixed (largely) the obvious failure to live up to that. And when justifying why clericial continence was important, the early fathers pointed to the sacrificial nature of the mass and the priest’s role in it. And this didn’t come from nowhere, but from Jewish practice with the Levitical priesthood in the Temple and from apostolic tradition.I thought the elephant in the room was the reality that the Catholic church has had a married priesthood for centuries, one that works.
And at a much faster rate than any other Christian denomination.Very true… and they allow women to be priests & bishops yet they are still bleeding.
I’m with you on this, it’s a verifiable fact and leaves me wondering just what is the real purpose behind the constant arguments in favour of removing celibacy and female ordination, perhaps I’m missing something?And at a much faster rate than any other Christian denomination.
And still there are Catholics of a ‘liberal’ inclination who claim that if only the Catholic Church would remove the discipline on celibacy in the priesthood, and even change doctrine to allow female ordination, that the issue of diminishing numbers of vocations would be addressed.
I’ve even heard some argue that the decline in vocations is the Holy Spirit guiding us towards a more ‘inclusive’ Church. I think that there is a section calling for the removal of the celibacy discipline who see it as a first ‘liberalising’ step towards female ordination. I think that the vocations numbers argument is just a tool some wish to use to add weight to their call for a ‘liberalisation’ of Church teaching on a whole range of issues. As far as the steep decline in the Anglican church is concerned, I don’t think such people care so much about declining numbers, so long as the Church ‘liberalises’.I’m with you on this, it’s a verifiable fact and leaves me wondering just what is the real purpose behind the constant arguments in favour of removing celibacy and female ordination, perhaps I’m missing something?
Were they sexually active with their spouses?Apparently I can’t edit my post anymore, but one last addition. Let’s not speak as if a sexually active priesthood is the older tradition in the Church and continence was just a medieval inevntion. Were married priests ordained? Yes. We’re they supposed to be sexually active? No.
Here we go again, “removing the discipline of celibacy”.And at a much faster rate than any other Christian denomination.
And still there are Catholics of a ‘liberal’ inclination who claim that if only the Catholic Church would remove the discipline on celibacy in the priesthood, and even change doctrine to allow female ordination, that the issue of diminishing numbers of vocations would be addressed.
And what about not trying to fix what according to the magisterial Church, ain’t broke?Here we go again, “removing the discipline of celibacy”.
How about keeping the discipline of celibacy for those who are called to it, and ordaining married men who are called to priesthood and marriage? Those are not in conflict.
In another diocese in my home state there’s a complicated case of a widowed deacon who remarried outside the Church… Indeed, it doesn’t seem to be a problem, because the many such cases are dealt with sensibly, yet, this problem is very real.As to divorced priests, annulments, etc. - we have married deacons. Doenst seem to be a problem.
No, the Church is richer for such men, who avowed in total freedom to remain celibate for life, having left. Men who are worth their word before men and God are not worthy of the priesthood.There is evidence many priests have co-habited in the past. In recent years two of the best young Bishops in the UK left because of affairs with married women. The church here is the poorer for their leaving.
The proof is in their pudding: they also promised that, if Catholic doctrine were watered down and replaced with sappy self-esteem sentimentalism, the churches would be bursting at the seams. Err, the practice of the Faith has been decimated in their tenure.And still there are Catholics of a ‘liberal’ inclination who claim that if only the Catholic Church would remove the discipline on celibacy in the priesthood, and even change doctrine to allow female ordination, that the issue of diminishing numbers of vocations would be addressed.
That could indeed by done, but would it address the falling number of vocations? Would this lead to increased numbers attending Mass? Look at the Anglican church, has it worked for them? It would seem not.Here we go again, “removing the discipline of celibacy”.
How about keeping the discipline of celibacy for those who are called to it, and ordaining married men who are called to priesthood and marriage? Those are not in conflict.