Don’t we have deacons for those things? I have no objection to married deacons, the deacon at my parish is married, I just object very much to married priests. A priest is not Christ, but I think tradition dictates that they should follow Christ’s example and not marry. If they want to marry, they can leave the Church.
Aren’t there also married Latin rite priests, most of whom are former Protestant ministers?
I hope you wouldn’t ask Eastern Catholic priests who happens to be married to leave the Church. Or to Latin Rite married priest that converted from Anglicanism…
It is indeed tradition of the Latin Rite, lower-case “t”, that dictates that priests shouldn’t be married. But it isn’t a Tradition, upper-case “T”, that is, it isn’t an Apostolic Tradition that forms a part of the deposit of faith. How could it be Apostolic Tradition if Peter himself was married?
Look, I understand that married Latin priests could cause a massive scandal across parishes, which is one of the reasons I personally believe it isn’t going to happen, but one needs to understand that married Catholic priests already exist, and they can be as spiritually satisfying as confessors or spiritual directors as any celibate Latin priest. I doubt Rome would allow full communion with these churches otherwise.
Right, those are whom I meant regarding the converts from Anglicanism, though I am not aware if there’s other Protestant traditions that married Latin priests can also come from
This already happens in Eastern Catholic seminaries involving married men who become transitional deacons who are in line to be ordained into the priesthood.
No, I wouldn’t. The Eastern Rite and the Anglican have a tradition of ordaining married men, however if an Eastern Rite priest is ordained prior to marriage, he then cannot marry. At least that is my understanding. If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will correct me.
I hope you wouldn’t ask Eastern Catholic priests who happens to be married to leave the Church. Or to Latin Rite married priest that converted from Anglicanism…
It is indeed tradition of the Latin Rite, lower-case “t”, that dictates that priests shouldn’t be married. But it isn’t a Tradition, upper-case “T”, that is, it isn’t an Apostolic Tradition that forms a part of the deposit of faith. How could it be Apostolic Tradition if Peter himself was married?
Look, I understand that married Latin priests could cause a massive scandal across parishes, which is one of the reasons I personally believe it isn’t going to happen, but one needs to understand that married Catholic priests already exist, and they can be as spiritually satisfying as confessors or spiritual directors as any celibate Latin priest. I doubt Rome would allow full communion with these churches otherwise.
If I’m not mistaken I have read of priests who were once former Lutherans. I also remembered reading about a priest who was a former Baptist.
I’m fine with married deacons, but I would never accept one as a priest. Would change my parish.
It must be possible to be wrong. On this issue, one side or another must be wrong, as they are not in agreement, which is my only point. There is no agreement as to the actual doctrine. Therefore, in theory, the Pope could weigh in and define where doctrine ends and discipline begins by changing a discipline.
I was reading there was about a hundred married Roman Catholic priests at this time. I used to hear one on the radio. The thing is, if one had such a priest in one’s diocese and the bishop thought he would best be used in a certain parish priest, the decision of the bishop, the actual shepherd of the parish, should be honored by those parishioners without the upturned nose.
I’m sure that there are many married priests in the Eastern Churches–as well as their parishioners–who would disagree.
I’m sure there are, but that has been their tradition for centuries. In the Roman Church it has been unmarried priests.
That seems correct.
Which is why I asked in a previous message on this thread if that is also the case for Eastern Catholic priests and their parishes.
Ahh, gotcha.
I was not aware of that.Like I said, I’d like to know if this is also an issue in Eastern Catholicism.
The part I’ve bolded in your message is what I’d like to address. Sure, there seems to be some level of disagreement as to what is actual doctrine in this case among theologians. But that prominent, even authoritative theologians are wrong about what is and isn’t doctrine is also a possibility. Here’s the thing; in that catholic.com article I linked before, it seems to state in rather unequivocal terms that it is known what the doctrines are in this case, regardless of what any theologian seems to claim; namely
I’m just having a hard time trying to see how to get around this.
That is absolutely correct, it is indeed a duty of the faithful to be obedient to the bishop. But as history has shown us, this often does not happen. Look at the so-called Medjugorje “apparitions” of the Virgin; a lot of people don’t care what the bishops say, they go there anyway.
Actual Catholic news sites can be trusted. But anyone can found a website and use the word “Catholic”. You have to be selective. Is a given site, or magazine, or whatever, actually under the Magisterium? Many sites, including those labelled Catholic, or Franciscan, Jesuit, or etc, are not under the Magisterium.…since it was from a Catholic website I was curious.
Apparently even Catholic news sites cannot be trusted.
Thanks for the thoughts!
But we already have married priests in the Latin Rite. Deacons are very limited. They cannot say Mass nor hear confessions both essential pastoral duties. I respect your belief that the priesthood follows Christ in celibacy, however in church history this was not always the case and there are many fine married Catholic priests right now. The decision to retain celibacy is more to do with economics and movement of priests within the Bishops’ direction than in following Christ’s wonderful example. Bit harsh throwing them out of the Church if they are validly married and are ordained legitimately.
A clarification:
Yes, of course, Eastern Catholic bishops are wrong to do so, and the Holy See is also wrong for being in full communion with these churches.
We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not the Eastern Rite, which has a tradition of ordaining married men. But even the Eastern Rite does not allow men who were ordained when not married to marry. The Eastern bishops were not wrong to follow their own tradition and Rome is not wrong to be in full communion with them. A married priesthood is just not the tradition in the Roman Church.Yes, of course, Eastern Catholic bishops are wrong to do so, and the Holy See is also wrong for being in full communion with these churches.
I am sorry, but after reading comments like this, I refuse to be a part of this thread anymore.
Goodbye.
I agree absolutely that celibacy is not the reason for the lack of vocations. It is indeed the inspiration of the family, or lack of it and a slowly decaying culture. However, I believe that there are enough good men who will take up the challenge, hard as it is, because Jesus will not let his vineyards become overgrown.