vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.htmlThere are a number of big issues here; not least of which is that you are presenting the Roman discipline of a celibate clergy as the Catholic tradition. Not only that, you are presenting it as somehow superior to the married clergy and to marriage itself.
The Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is one of 21+ sui iuris Churches that, together as a communion of Churches, make up the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches, all of which are in communion with the Roman Church, have a very long and ancient history of admitting married men to the priesthood. Many of these married men - along with their wives and families - have provided a great, and oftentimes heroic service to the flocks they minister to. The good Orthodox bishop, who has graced us with his presence, is simply providing a voice for the Eastern tradition here that is held by both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, in re. married clergy. He is, therefore, not just representing Orthodox ideas, but also ideas and traditions held dear by Eastern Catholics as well!
There are many saints who we revere and none of them were married priests, so…again, please read the document above.A married Roman Catholic priest recently buried my mother and I have rarely met a more holy man wo conducted the mass and services with exceptional piety. His married status was irrelevant (or possibly that is what helps him to be such an exceptionally holy man)
Everyone in Heaven is a saint. What canonisation has to do with this I have no ideaThere are many saints who we revere and none of them were married priests, so…again, please read the document above.
The canonised saints in the Church are those who not only became saints after having gone through purgatory but those who lived as saints on earth via the grace of our Creator nad who set an example for all people.Everyone in Heaven is a saint. What canonisation has to do with this I have no idea
But this is about the West/East traditions in relation to clerical celibacy. Why are you going on about saints?The canonised saints in the Church are those who not only became saints after having gone through purgatory but those who lived as saints on earth via the grace of our Creator nad who set an example for all people.
Again, please read the link to the document.
There will also be various Vatican documents no doubt speaking of the importance of canonised saints. The Church was formed on the blood of martyrs and the sacrificial love of saints in union with the Passion of our Lord and so a little bit of reverence wouldn’t go amiss.
Because you said this: ‘A married Roman Catholic priest recently buried my mother and I have rarely met a more holy man wo conducted the mass and services with exceptional piety. His married status was irrelevant (or possibly that is what helps him to be such an exceptionally holy man)’.But this is about the West/East traditions in relation to clerical celibacy. Why are you going on about saints?
Is that post provocative? I think you need to explain that. Furthermore I remain mystified why you have introduced the subject of canonisation into this discussion. I certainly didn’t. However I found the priest I wrote about to be an extremely edifying person, his marital status did nothing to take away from that. And if I wanted to provoke you please rest assured that I wouldn’t have referred to my mothers funeral to do it.Because you said this: ‘A married Roman Catholic priest recently buried my mother and I have rarely met a more holy man wo conducted the mass and services with exceptional piety. His married status was irrelevant (or possibly that is what helps him to be such an exceptionally holy man)’.
And so I was responding in a way that points to the lack of relevance in your post.
Again, a case of someone posting provocatory remarks, and then acting suprised when facing a direct (and sensible) reaction.
First of all, my condolences. A heavy burden to carry such a weight.Is that post provocative? I think you need to explain that. Furthermore I remain mystified why you have introduced the subject of canonisation into this discussion. I certainly didn’t. However I found the priest I wrote about to be an extremely edifying person, his marital status did nothing to take away from that. And if I wanted to provoke you please rest assured that I wouldn’t have referred to my mothers funeral to do it.
Well said!!!Philip,
In my opinion, it is a protestant mindset that has infected sections of the Catholic Church - including many in the hierarchy. This either/or is in opposition to the ‘both/and’ Tradition of our Fathers in Faith.
On 2) To go into the temple implied performing sacrifices. That was the primary purpose of doing so. He adds baptism and other ministries as an after-thought, by way of concession. On 3) That was true of where Ambrosiaster was active (Rome), but just as having seven deacons per city was not a universal norm(though it was the norm in Rome for centuries), it would be a mistake to extrapolate other universal norms from Ambrosiaster’s commentary which centers on the practice of the Church of Rome.Three things. 1.) If I came off as condescending, I am sorry, it was not my intent. 2.) Ambrosiaster quite clearly ties continence to two things; the needs of the ordained to serve every day in the church, not just for the Eucharistic sacrifice, but for baptisms as well. He ties physically being in the church with the need for purification as well, as shown here:Again, he ties the ancients not being in the temple everyday as the reason why they could practice their marital rights, and contrasts that with why the ordained of his day must practice continence. 3.) You did not address the next quote of his, where he specifically says that the priests do not have any intercourse. He specifically says any, with no qualifications. Why is that?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. In the East, it was the norm that holy orders was an impediment to marriage which could only be resolved by the ordained being laicized or by remaining unmarried (this is true even today of priests and deacons who were ordained in celibacy, as well as of married clergy whose wives have died). Canon X of Ancyra contains a highly peculiar exception to that rule (in other words a difficult passage), and later canonists resolved this difficulty by interpreting it to mean that the bishop, by continuing with the ordination after having heard the ordinand’s intent to marry, gave consent to such an arrangement. Now St. Martin would likely have been aware of this norm, so what would his likely course of action have been when he came across canon X? Certainly, had he been unfamiliar with this canon of a local council, his first instinct would probably have been to have believed that a copyist had accidentally excluded ου and μη a few times (just like the so-called wicked bible, which accidentally printed Exodus 20:14 as “Thou shalt commit adultery”), and so to introduce the negators into the text in order to “correct” it. Perhaps St. Martin did not even have a correct copy of Canon X, but instead already had a corrupted copy. Either way, he would have acted in perfectly good faith, as copyist errors like that happened all the time.1.) He was ordained in Palestine, so he would certainly know what the norm is for the East at that time. To mistranslate it knowing what the practices of the East were at that time would be a purposeful mistranslation. Are you saying that is what he did?
St. Justinian’s legal code was codifying what was the norm, and the norm has always been that clergy cannot marry after ordination. One of the principles of textual criticism used in trying to reconstruct a text is that the more difficult reading is more likely to be the original, since the less difficult reading more likely than not stems from an attempt to fix the text and resolve the difficulty it creates. St. Justinian’s legal code doesn’t hurt the idea that the more difficult reading is more likely than not to be the original reading. For despite St. Justinian’s legislation to the contrary, that the more difficult reading should have been preserved to this day as the standard reading gives one a reasonable degree of confidence that it is likely to be the original.2.) The fact that Justinian writing 26 years before him, stating the exact same thing lends credence to St. Martin, and hurts your argument.
Canons 5/6 and 51 from the apostolic canons. They may be pseudepigraphic, but they could only have gained such wide currency by giving an accurate portrait of what the ideal Christian life was like at the time of their composition.Can you show me any writings from before Trullo in favor of your position?
And my apologies for taking offense where none was meant.Again my apologies for coming off as condescending.
Check your history - The Apostle St. Peter (Pope), St. Philip the Evangelist, St Gregory of Nyssa (a bishop), St. Demetrius the Vine Dresser (Patriarch) - all Saints, all marriedThere are many saints who we revere and none of them were married priests, so…again, please read the document above.
Interesting turn around, considering, historically it was the Latin Church forcing the Eastern Churches to copy the Latin norms, and not “love” Eastern ones.Again, if you read Church documents you will see that each member of their own church is to love their church. Please don’t listen to the other posters who say it is because I think they need to do things a certain way. I don’t. The document which I’ve been trying to find, and will find and post, clearly says that we are to respect and love our traditions and our churches, but there are those on here who are trying to tell people what we are doing wrong in the RCC, and I don’t think it is their place. If you think I am not allowed to speak up for the RCC and instead that Roman Catholics should be muzzled while everyone tells us how we should do things then I am surprised by your thinking.
There is no proof that St. Peter was married by the time he entered the role given him by the Lord apart from a brief mention of his mother-in-law but no account of a ‘wife’. Please check Scripture.Check your history - The Apostle St. Peter (Pope), St. Philip the Evangelist, St Gregory of Nyssa (a bishop), St. Demetrius the Vine Dresser (Patriarch) - all Saints, all married
So married or a widower.There is no proof that St. Peter was married by the time he entered the role given him by the Lord apart form a brief mention of his mother-in-law but no account of a ‘wife’. Please check Scripture.
I think Eastern churches broke form Rome not the other way around.Interesting turn around, considering, historically it was the Latin Church forcing the Eastern Churches to copy the Latin norms, and not “love” Eastern ones.
His state, at the actual time he was made the “Rock” upon which the Church stands, matters.So married or a widower.
May I ask why this is so contentious for you. The marital state of the priest has nothing to do with his priestly powers nor is it an article of faith it is custom and practice rather than doctrine. To have a married priest is as much a blessing as a celibate priestHis state, at the actual time he was made the “Rock” upon which the Church stands, matters.
A widower is no longer technically married. Which is why a widower can remarry in the Catholic Church.
I believe that each church should love their own while respecting other Churches and all the traditions and customs that are passed down. Fortunately, the divides are on the decrease. But for eastern church Christians to suggest that RCs should have married priests and that it doesn’t matter is quite offensive, especially, to all those priests who gave up female company for the priestly vocation.May I ask why this is so contentious for you. The marital state of the priest has nothing to do with his priestly powers nor is it an article of faith it is custom and practice rather than doctrine. To have a married priest is as much a blessing as a celibate priest
But we HAVE married priests hundreds of them it’s already a fact and I see no detrimentI believe that each church should love their own while respecting other Churches and all the traditions and customs that are passed down. Fortunately, the divides are on the decrease. But for eastern church Christians to suggest that RCs should have married priests and that it doesn’t matter is quite offensive, especially, to all those priests who gave up female company for the priestly vocation.