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

[FrStevenJones]

The Eastern Churches would say, the MONK is celibate because Christ was celibate. The bride is the Church, Christ is the bridegroom. Since the monk is in the person of Christ, it is thus appropriate and fitting Church discipline that he be celibate monks, if married and a widower, enrolled as a monk after his children are grown. So this is not a discipline that will ever be simply discarded. Eastern bishops must be celibate. Both married and celibate priests have the calling to serve their respective communities. Celibate monk priests within their monastic communities of brothers; or hermits with their direct calling to God, if priest to offer themselves in sacrifice along with the Eucharist; if married and priest, to offer his children his fatherhood, both biological and spiritual, to the Lord in Eucharist.

There is no competition between them, each have their own calling, all complementary to the Body of Christ.

Sarcasm is not helpful here. To clarify: A monk may be either a brother or priest. The ministerial priesthood is in the person of Christ, whether he is living monastic or diocesan life. The priest is celibate because Christ was celibate. A spiritual mission, not a mission of natural fatherhood, but spiritual fatherhood. Thus the celibate priesthood is always the ideal, continuing the mission of Christ, offering himself completely to his bride, the church.

 

[Abu]

TMC #6
Not only isn’t it Dogma, its arguably not the historical norm. There was no celibacy requirements for about the first 1,000 years of Church history.
robertkchacon #7
It was only after the first millennium that the Church decided to make celibacy a normal requirement for priests in the Latin Church,

Both are incorrect, confusing celibacy with continence.

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. It still is the norm in the Latin Rite.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. 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).

The reality is that priestly continence is an Apostolic Norm. From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

Fr Ray Ryland writes: “In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction in 1858 that stated: ‘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.’ " 9
Notes
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code. *Eastern Churches Journal *, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

RyanBlack #10
Countless Orthodox and Eastern Catholic priests have managed to be good pastors, good husbands, and good fathers.

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.” [My emphasis].

 

[SAVINGRACE]

It’s not dogma because priestly celibacy is not a divinely revealed Truth.

Dogma is like the Resurrection, Ascension, etc.

Throughout the Church’s history we have always had both married and celibate priests. However, the Church certainly has the authority to require celibacy of priests.

Thank you for the explanation in layman’s language.

I wasn’t aware that Priests were allowed to get married in Eastern Catholicism, I just assumed that it was a doctrine.

 

[otjm]

No it is not dogma.
Curious why that would make you reel tho.

Much of it is practical in nature. We ask much of our priests…obedience…to be sent to hinterlands or wherever needed. That’s not compatible with what we expect of men with families. How can a man be a good dad to his kids when he’s never there for them…I know for a fact my priest, given all he does, would not have time to be a good husband or dad…if he had a wife, she would be a very unhappy lady indeed, having to raise kids all by herself. In poverty no less.
It would be decidedly unfair to all concerned, and certainly not consistent with the catholic idea of family. So it makes alot of common sense for men to choose one or the other.
So be careful what you wish for.

Actually priests - married or unmarried, move less frequently than mid level and upper level managers in large companies. Not sure what you mean by a dad not being there for them; managers who move, move the whole family. So would a priest; assuming that the diocese needed to move married priests.

Deacons are married; and they are generally not moved from one place to another; so it is not necessarily a requirement that if the Church were to ordain some married men (which they are already doing) that a prerequisite would be that the priest would have to move, or move frequently.

 

[otjm]

I’m very grateful to be a Western Roman Catholic and have the witness of so many devoted priests who mirror Our Lord’s perfect chastity, giving up this worldly good for the sake of the Kingdom, in imitation of the Master.

He is our High Priest and King; how fitting that His priests imitate His total immolation of self for souls.

No, celibacy is not some dispensable practice that can be discarded because it is not a doctrine. It is a venerable tradition of our Church, and as recent Popes have reiterated, the issue of ever changing this discipline in the West is closed.

Why is it that when the discussion of having married priests comes up, someone has to suggest that is a discarding of the practice of celibacy? It has not been so in the Eastern rites; and it is not so now in the Roman rite where were are getting "back door’ married priests from those married ministers (Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodists, Lutherans, and (at least) one Presbyterian who join the Church and are ordained.

It is not a matter of celibacy being a “dispensable” practice; the Church has always had celibate priests. It has also always had married priests (Eastern Catholics are just as Catholic as Roman ones) and as noted, the Roman rite again has married priests.So it is patently clear that the issue is not closed. Further, we have permanent deacons, many,if not most who are or have been married. to say the issue will never be changed is to ignore the present reality.

 

[otjm]

The priest is celibate because Christ was celibate. The bride is the Church, Christ is the bridegroom. Since the priest is in the person of Christ, it is thus appropriate and fitting Church discipline that he be celibate. So this is not a discipline that will ever be simply discarded. Eastern rite bishops must be celibate. Non-celibate priests have never been the ideal, and never will be.

Again, why, whe the discussion comes up, is the word “discarded” used. Allowing the Roman rite to have married priests as well as celibate priests is not “discarding” anything. In fact, that is what we have now, albeit “back door” because of married ministers being ordained.

I would lay dollars to donuts we have had permanent deacons in the past who were celibate; and I am sure we have them now. Having someone who is ordained and is married is not a denigration of those who are celibate; if nothing else, it makes clear that the celibate made a choice to serve in an ordained position that much clearer that it was a choice.

I have been around long enough to have seen the exodus of priests out of active ministry to marry. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s many left to get married. While they may not have had realistic expectations (the Church has been fairly consistent in not allowing priests already ordained to marry), there clearly was a wide-spread assumption that the Church was going to change its practice.

The Church currently is ordaining married men, albeit from Protestant backgrounds. I would assume that you would not denigrate your brother priests, even if they were married; they are an Alter Christus just every bit as much as you are when you confect the sacraments.

 

[otjm]

Both are incorrect, confusing celibacy with continence.

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. It still is the norm in the Latin Rite.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. 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).

The reality is that priestly continence is an Apostolic Norm. From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

Fr Ray Ryland writes: “In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction in 1858 that stated: ‘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.’ " 9
Notes
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code. *Eastern Churches Journal *, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.” [My emphasis].

I does not take a particularly long study of the issue to conclude that while continence may have been the norm, it was by no means the absolute practice.

In the not so distant past, there was a discussion between at least two well-known Canon lawyers concerning the issue of continence among permanent deacons. The reality of that was an intellectual discussion among some highly educated intellectuals. Meanwhile, the practice among the deacons is otherwise.

 

[Abu]

There can no longer be any question that Priestly continence was the norm from the beginning and there were no legitimate exceptions.
Here is more testimony to the truth:
Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989), notes that “Virginity and celibacy were not synonymous in the original ecclesiastical institution of celibacy. Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries, and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millenium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…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.”

While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.

Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ … Interview with Fr McGovern
National Catholic REGISTER, May 19-25, 2002
“Recent scholarship on the history of celibacy in both the Easter and Western Church has shown that there is a considerable body of evidence in favour of the argument that priestly celibacy is of apostolic origin, based on Christ’s invitation to the Twelve to leave all things and follow him (cf. Mt 19:29). [5] Indeed, John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday *Letter to Priests *that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.”
Note:
[5] Christian Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1990; Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West, Fowler Wright, Leominister, 1988; Alfons M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1995; Stanley L. Jaki, Theology of Priestly Celibacy, Front Royal, Va. 1997; Stefan Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000.
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/ncrinterview.htm

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I’d just like to add, The Church teaches us a hierarchy of truths. To appreciate what dogma is we should start with the reality – when a dogma is declared the Truth must be believed and is necessary for our salvation.

When we examine Priestly Celibacy it has been revealed it is commended by Jesus himself. Also, Pope Paul VI clearly explains (in Presbyterorum Ordinis) Ecclesiastical Celibacy “is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood observe celibacy.” This is also helpful to us in understand why this is not a dogma.

This in no way means Priestly Celibacy is just a man-made law with questionable value. We Catholics of the Latin Rite understand this as a something Jesus himself commended and a very special gift in the life of the Church. We should appreciate this gift.

Thank you for that information. Familiarising myself with the differences between dogma, doctrine, discipline/tradition.

It’s as clear as mud. just kidding.

So many intricacies, terms and definitions to learn. Not to mention the history. I thought RCIA was information overload.

To the simple layperson (me) it appears to be a loophole but I am beginning to understand the reasoning and history from the different knowledgeable posters.

The differences between Eastern & Western Catholic clergy in terms of marriage and celibacy still confuses me. How can they be different yet still ‘Catholic’? It seems to me that the reasons why Eastern clergy are allowed to be married could be applied to Western clergy, aren’t we ALL Catholic.

 

[FrStevenJones]

Again, why, whe the discussion comes up, is the word “discarded” used. Allowing the Roman rite to have married priests as well as celibate priests is not “discarding” anything. In fact, that is what we have now, albeit “back door” because of married ministers being ordained.

I would lay dollars to donuts we have had permanent deacons in the past who were celibate; and I am sure we have them now. Having someone who is ordained and is married is not a denigration of those who are celibate; if nothing else, it makes clear that the celibate made a choice to serve in an ordained position that much clearer that it was a choice.

I have been around long enough to have seen the exodus of priests out of active ministry to marry. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s many left to get married. While they may not have had realistic expectations (the Church has been fairly consistent in not allowing priests already ordained to marry), there clearly was a wide-spread assumption that the Church was going to change its practice.

The Church currently is ordaining married men, albeit from Protestant backgrounds. I would assume that you would not denigrate your brother priests, even if they were married; they are an Alter Christus just every bit as much as you are when you confect the sacraments.

You haven’t understood the key point. It all goes back to Christ the celibate who came on a spiritual mission for his bride, the Church. He didn’t come to father natural children, but spiritual children. If you don’t understand and accept that you also won’t understand why the exceptions you name are not the ideal. The Latin rite church follows the ideal. Exceptions are made, but following Christ in the fullness is the mission. Thus, celibacy.

 

[MacQ]

Actually priests - married or unmarried, move less frequently than mid level and upper level managers in large companies. Not sure what you mean by a dad not being there for them; managers who move, move the whole family. So would a priest; assuming that the diocese needed to move married priests.

Deacons are married; and they are generally not moved from one place to another; so it is not necessarily a requirement that if the Church were to ordain some married men (which they are already doing) that a prerequisite would be that the priest would have to move, or move frequently.

Dad not being there: he’s presiding over a funeral or a wedding or at a deathbed instead of at little Johnny’s soccer game. Pretty much every day.

Yes, that happens with corporate managers too…they have a big meeting or whatever. That some men are married to their jobs (without having taken a vow to be) is kinda tangential.
Not sure what deacons have to do with it. They have different roles, and they too have some marital requirements.
None of the priest I know would have time (or the money) to devote to a family other than the one they married by their vows.

 

[RyanBlack]

Dad not being there: he’s presiding over a funeral or a wedding or at a deathbed instead of at little Johnny’s soccer game. Pretty much every day.

Yes, that happens with corporate managers too…they have a big meeting or whatever. That some men are married to their jobs (without having taken a vow to be) is kinda tangential.
Not sure what deacons have to do with it. They have different roles, and they too have some marital requirements.
None of the priest I know would have time (or the money) to devote to a family other than the one they married by their vows.

And if this should be a determinative argument on the matter, then why does Holy Scripture itself (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2-5, Titus 1:6) presume that a married priesthood was not exceptional, and perhaps even the norm at the time the NT was written?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sarcasm is not helpful here.

Where’s the sarcasm? I am being completely serious. I present the Eastern view, equally Catholic.

As to quoting Cholij, he officially renounced his priesthood to marry and disavowed his books as inaccurate.

Pope Benedict XVI’s choice as the church’s top official for priests has said that celibacy “is not a dogma,” and that the Catholic church “can reflect” on the subject. The explosive character of the issue, however, was reflected in a “clarification” issued in the name of the cardinal by the Vatican Press Office on Dec. 4. Cardinal Claudio Hummes, 72, of São Paulo, Brazil, was nominated Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy on Oct. 31. He made the comments as he left for Rome in an interview with the Brazilian publication Estado de São Paulo. “Even if celibates are part of our history and of Catholic culture, the church can reflect on the question of celibacy, because it’s not a dogma but a disciplinary norm,” Hummes said. Hummes, a Franciscan, recalled that several Apostles were married, and that the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Western church developed several centuries after the institution of the priesthood itself. “The church is not stationary, but an institution that changes when it has to change,” Hummes said. “The church must first discuss if it is necessary to reconsider the norm of celibacy.”

Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos (EO):

Very recently, there are disturbing signs of a new effort in Rome itself to claim that sacerdotal celibacy is “an apostolic tradition,” and to suggest that the married priests of the Eastern Churches are not fully canonical. This seems to have begun with the book of Christian Cochini, Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal and to have continued with special reference to the Eastern Churches in a tendentious book of Roman Cholij. The latter book carries a ringing endorsement from Alfons Cardinal Stickler, Librarian and Archivist of the Holy Roman Church. From such one-sided works, the attempt to present sacerdotal celibacy as an apostolic tradition then began to appear in Vatican documents, such as Pope John Paul II’s Pastores Dabo Vobis of 25 March 1992 and the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests issued January 1993 by the Vatican Congregation of the Clergy, which actually asserts 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.” If this attempt succeeds – and may God not permit it – it would have the gravest consequence for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

In the East, the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (†215) is without ambiguity; after commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, he adds:

All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be presbyter, deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children.

Hence, the rule of continence for clerics was sometimes endorsed, sometimes denounced. Commenting on the “husband of one wife” clause, Eusebius of Caesarea writes:

It is fitting, according to Scripture, ‘that a bishop be the husband of an only wife.’ But this being understood, it behooves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal relations with their wives.
St Epiphanius (†403), a monk-bishop known for his “zeal for the monastic life” and who had close ties with the Church of Rome, was among those who promoted the ascetic ideal on all, including subdeacons:

Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the deaconate, the priesthood or the episcopate, nor even to the subdeaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Even the oft quoted former Fr. Cholij stated:

Caution, of course, has to be exercised in not reading into these texts more than they contain, and one has to recognize that local practices do not necessarily imply a general rule. Furthermore, other texts need to be considered, such as Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, 12; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 12, 25; Athanasius, Letter to Dracontius which do not obviously suggest the possibility of a general rule. Indeed, since the end of the nineteenth century such texts have been used to demonstrate the existence of an early general law of continence in the East. Polemical or confessional interests aside, it can be said that modern tools of scholarship, not available in the past, have allowed doubt to be cast on the certainty of these conclusions too.

Years after Nicea, the council of Gangra (c. 325-c. 381) had to reaffirm the dignity of the married presbyterate, obviously because some among the people felt that the Eucharistic offering might be defiled by the bonds of marriage:

Canon 4: If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that it is not lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.
The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 390) represent the same spirit:
6. Let not a bishop, a priest, or a deacon cast off his own wife under pretence of piety; but if he does cast her off, let him be suspended. If he go on in it, let him be deprived.
51. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, abstains from marriage, flesh, and wine, not for his own exercise, but because he abominates these things, forgetting that “all things were very good,” Genesis 1:31 and that “God made man male and female,” Genesis 1:26 and blasphemously abuses the creation, either let him reform, or let him be deprived, and be cast out of the Church; and the same for one of the laity.

see orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy for more, they cover much of the Catholic and Orthodox positions from East and West equally.

 

[ARSpade]

In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment." [My emphasis].

Friend of my wife’s is getting married. She’s protestant. She’s supposed to be taking some kind of marriage prep thing (she requested it, I don’t think their church even requires it) but the pastor has been too busy with her kid’s basketball tournament, people getting sick, and her day job to get around to it and has cancelled several times.

 

[FrStevenJones]

Where’s the sarcasm? I am being completely serious. I present the Eastern view, equally Catholic.

As to quoting Cholij, he officially renounced his priesthood to marry and disavowed his books as inaccurate.

What I interpreted as sarcasm is to take my post and insert your own words in it, line by line, co-opting my words and thought for another end, without explaining what you were doing. To me this was not only sarcastic but disrespectful. Perhaps that was not your intent.

 

[RyanBlack]

What I interpreted as sarcasm is to take my post and insert your own words in it, line by line, co-opting my words and thought for another end, without explaining what you were doing. To me this was not only sarcastic but disrespectful. Perhaps that was not your intent.

It seemed clear to me that sarcasm was not his intent. I was quite perplexed by your accusation that he was being sarcastic. I saw nothing slightly sarcastic or even remotely disrespectful in his post.

 

[MacQ]

And if this should be a determinative argument on the matter, then why does Holy Scripture itself (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2-5, Titus 1:6) presume that a married priesthood was not exceptional, and perhaps even the norm at the time the NT was written?

I never said here weren’t other reasons…I simply pointed out that there are also **practical **ones. Which are not small.

 

[MacQ]

The differences between Eastern & Western Catholic clergy in terms of marriage and celibacy still confuses me. How can they be different yet still ‘Catholic’? It seems to me that the reasons why Eastern clergy are allowed to be married could be applied to Western clergy, aren’t we ALL Catholic.

We’re all “catholic”, but we are not one united Church…there are still many differences between the eastern rite (orthodox) and western (roman rite) churches. The Eastern Church doesn’t recognize our Pope, for example. Different liturgical calendars, and…different norms for priests and bishops.

 

[RyanBlack]

We’re all “catholic”, but we are not one united Church…there are still many differences between the eastern rite (orthodox) and western (roman rite) churches. The Eastern Church doesn’t recognize our Pope, for example. Different liturgical calendars, and…different norms for priests and bishops.

In this case, the reference was to the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in communion with the Pope.