If priestly celibacy is not a dogma, why can't it be changed?

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #233
are you saying the Holy Spirit allowed VC2 to omit, or even further - err - on an Apostolic Truth?

As everyone should know, there is no question of a dogma or a doctrine involved here as the continent priests are a result of the Apostolic Norm which was recognized by **the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in Non latet (1858):
“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
[Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628].
canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm#Sacra_Congregatio

“….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-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy

 

[SyroMalankara]

As everyone should know, there is no question of a dogma or a doctrine involved here as the continent priests are a result of the Apostolic Norm which was recognized by **the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in *Non latet ***(1858):
“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
[Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628].
canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm#Sacra_Congregatio

“….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-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy

You mean it’s a discipline and not a doctrine or dogma - glad you came around. Finally.

It should be noted that you are saying that VC2 did in fact err because unlike your previous claim, that this ‘new evidence’ was unknown to the Council; this latest one is from 100 years before the Council began. Not to mention, “if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom” that this discipline was not universal; remember, despite Trullo, you have not touched the Traditions of the non-Byzantine Churches at all, and even among the Byzantine Churches, “by behavior and custom”, both celibate and married priests were among them (not to mention deacons, sub-deacons, even some bishops for a time).

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #236
You mean it’s a discipline and not a doctrine or dogma - glad you came around. Finally.

Such a false interpretation shows a lack of understanding and inability to attend to the facts given. No wonder there so little realization of the reality concerning the Church’s appreciation of continence in the priesthood – no wonder there is so much error.

The reality has been expressed clearly always as shown:
Post #22:
“In the whole Church continence was the Apostolic norm until the Eastern Rite unilaterally chose to change the discipline in the seventh century without authorisation.”

Post #28:
“The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed”

Post #67:
“Fr. John Echert of EWTN on 10/Nov/03 had this to say:
This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.”

Post #208 in reply to SyroMalankara #207
“**The disciplinary canons **of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence(Ad Catholici Sacerdotii , 43, 1935)” [Pope Pius XI].

 

[babochka]

The reality has been expressed clearly always as shown:
Post #22:
“In the whole Church continence was the Apostolic norm until the Eastern Rite unilaterally chose to change the discipline in the seventh century without authorisation.”

How does this explain the practice of the Oriental Churches, which do not require clerical celibacy? Their split was in 451, considerably earlier than the 7th century.

Post #67:
“Fr. John Echert of EWTN on 10/Nov/03 had this to say:
**This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy **in the Church East and West.”

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.

**

Post #208 in reply to SyroMalankara #207

“**The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence(Ad Catholici Sacerdotii , 43, 1935)” [Pope Pius XI].

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.