Is the Church's position like that of the 11th century in our relation to modernity?

[Hatikvah]

Disclaimer: In no way do I intend to attack the Catholic Church nor its positions on any issues; in fact, I’m rather fond of all of its moral positions. I’m merely referring to historical occurrences within the church when I speak of the lack of clerical celibacy.

In parts of this matter, you may want to think not of the visible, Catholic Church, but rather, of the “mystical Body of Christ,” which is described more fully in the 1943 papal encyclical Mystici corporis christi.

My informal idea is that the Church’s position today is almost analogous to that of the 11th century.

Today, the Church has many Christians and even entire denominations falling into the position of supporting gay marriage, though the “interior” (the organized groups, like the Catholic Church) rightfully oppose it.

In the 11th century, many priests and other clergy (particularly) bishops had wives and sometimes even children; this was also resisted from the inside and by the greater institution of the Church (even though, for this case, it happened to be that the greater hierarchy like many bishops did not).

Is this a valid viewpoint? Is this accurate in its historical weight?

Thanks!

 

[1ke]

No. Celibacy of priests is a discipline whereas the impossibility of same sex marriage is doctrine.

 

[Tomdstone]

… the impossibility of same sex marriage is doctrine.

When was that doctrine infallibly declared?

 

[Upgrade25]

When was that doctrine infallibly declared?

CCC. Bible. Papal Encyclicals.

The CCC is pretty infallible, a statement of the universal Magisterium.

Those verses can’t be taken as “for the times” due to Jesus’s radical changes to society.

Not infallible, but good measure on the deposit of faith.

Please make a new thread if you wish to continue debating, Tomdstone.

 

[Upgrade25]

No. Celibacy of priests is a discipline whereas the impossibility of same sex marriage is doctrine.

But, it’s still flagrant and widespread disobedience, even if not as major as the present crisis.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Disclaimer: In no way do I intend to attack the Catholic Church nor its positions on any issues; in fact, I’m rather fond of all of its moral positions. I’m merely referring to historical occurrences within the church when I speak of the lack of clerical celibacy.

In parts of this matter, you may want to think not of the visible, Catholic Church, but rather, of the “mystical Body of Christ,” which is described more fully in the 1943 papal encyclical Mystici corporis christi.

My informal idea is that the Church’s position today is almost analogous to that of the 11th century.

Today, the Church has many Christians and even entire denominations falling into the position of supporting gay marriage, though the “interior” (the organized groups, like the Catholic Church) rightfully oppose it.

In the 11th century, many priests and other clergy (particularly) bishops had wives and sometimes even children; this was also resisted from the inside and by the greater institution of the Church (even though, for this case, it happened to be that the greater hierarchy like many bishops did not).

Is this a valid viewpoint? Is this accurate in its historical weight?

Thanks!

Priestly marriage was still allowed in the 11th century.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Priestly marriage was still allowed in the 11th century.

And is still allowed in the Eastern churches and the Anglican Ordinariates. That said, Priestly marriage is not a panacea, and having it again throughout the Latin Rite won’t resolve the problems people think it will.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

But, it’s still flagrant and widespread disobedience, even if not as major as the present crisis.

And what “present crisis” are you referring to?
:ehh:

 

[kdbueno]

The metro-understanding regarding God’s divinity is correct.

 

[Upgrade25]

And what “present crisis” are you referring to?
:ehh:

The widespread heresy burning through Christianity…

 

[Scottgun]

Others answered well, but to restate before we spill into off-topic land: Priestly celibacy is a canonical norm, not a doctrinal absolute. Same as it ever was.

 

[Tomdstone]

Priestly celibacy is a canonical norm, not a doctrinal absolute.

If that is so, why did Cardinal Humbertus mention it as one of the reasons to excommunicate the Orthodox Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054?
“Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;”
ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/papal-bull-of-excommunication-to.html

 

[Wandile]

If that is so, why did Cardinal Humbertus mention it as one of the reasons to excommunicate the Orthodox Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054?
“Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;”
ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/papal-bull-of-excommunication-to.html

He probably assumed they followed the canonical norm too? Although it must be said the Greeks had broken with universal canonical norm at trully when allowing their priest s to break the law of continence.