O
On_my_way
Guest
Symeon Peter. Welcome to the forum. 
But bare who? 
But bare who? 
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I disagree with what you are saying here somewhat.
One can disagree with the Church and still be obedient.
Just as with laws in society.
There is a street I drive on daily, the speed limit there is 25 mph. It should be 35 or even 40 but they have such a low speed limit to catch people and make some revenue. I do not agree with the speed limit but I obey it.
Just as with clerical celibacy. This is a discipline, it is not a dogma. The Latin Church has a number of married priests today and then there is the issue of us Byzantines where we do not even have this discipline.
Your argument, āmany do not know this but when you reject the catholic churches teachings, you are rejecting the apastolic authority that was handed down from our first pope, the rock of Christs church, Peter, as well as the other eleven that still reside in the churchā, appears to be an attempt to raise this issue to that of a dogma.
You seem to ignore the fact that the married priesthood is also an ancient practice within the Church, one that the Eastern Church never abandoned.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
whoops my bad ā¦ twas just a slip of the fingers and hasty typing late at night ā¦ thanks otm
F
fix
Guest
He was speaking about the discipline of celibacy. Are you trying to say he was speaking about no longer allowing celibate men to become priests, meaning only married men could become priests?
I understood your question. I simply had to make it clear that in any event, at least according to what every priest says before his ordination, celibacy is not a matter of compulsion. Someone is accepted as a priest only when he does it of his own accord. And that is now the question, of course: How deeply do priesthood and celibacy belong together? And is
not the wish to have only one [without the other] a lower view of the priesthood? Nor do I think that in this matter itās enough simply to point to the Orthodox Churches and Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity has per se a completely different understanding of office: it is a function, it is a ministry coming out of the community, but it is not a sacrament in the same sense; it is not priesthood in this proper sense. In the Orthodox Churches we have, on the one hand, the full form of the priesthood, the priest monks, who alone can become bishops. Alongside them are the āpeopleās priestsā, who, if they want to marry, must marry before ordination but who exercise little pastoral care but are really only liturgical ministers. This is also a somewhat different conception of priesthood. We, on the other hand, are of the opinion that everyone who is a priest at all must be so in the way that the bishop is and that there cannot be such a division.
One ought not to declare that any custom of the Churchās life, no matter how deeply anchored and well founded, is wholly absolute. To be sure, the Church will have to ask herself the question again and again; she has now done so in two synods. But I think that given the whole history of Western Christianity and the inner vision that lies at the basis of the whole, the Church should not believe that she will easily gain much by resorting to this uncoupling; rather in any case she will lose if she does so.*
G
gez722
Guest
**"I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. " (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)
God Bless,
Gary
God Bless,
Gary
J
Jesus4Me
Guest
gez722 said:
A
alterserver_07
Guest
Yes, they should be chaste. They are being like Christ.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
gez722 said:
This does not change the fact that the Church has always had married priests. Jesus even pick at least one man who was married.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
A few things need to be settledā¦ people always get confused when they hear the āCā word.
- Celibate Priests in the Latin Rite (as well as celibate Priest-Monks/hierarchs in Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy) will NEVER be allowed to marry. Once celibate, always celibate.
- It is a discipline of the Latin Catholic Church to only ordain men who are celibate to the Priesthood. This is not a dogma and the Church can abolish this whenever she wishes, and that is perfectly within her abilities.
- Celibacy has always been valued as a wonderful gift in both the West and the East. In the Latin West, we have always held the Parish Priest as basically the bedrock symbol of our faith. (Also religious friars as well). In the Latin Church the Monastic life is not as united to Holy Orders as it is with the East. One can be a Monk and not even possess Orders in the West.
In the East, the Monastic life is held as the pinnacle symbol of faith. The hierarchs of the East come from only celibate Priest-Monks. Parish Priests are venerated highly by our Eastern brethren (so much so that they kiss the right hand of the Priest, as if it were Christās Hand Itself), but the eparchial Priest was a separate vocation and would not lead to Episcopal ordination. Itās not an inferior vocation, but it is an ontologically different one than the monastic life. Therefore, married men could have the presbytera and their children. His whole world would be the parishs he would serve; he would never have to worry about being the hierarch of an Eparchy or a Patriarch.
B
bekalc
Guest
Donāt see why the church canāt change it. I personally think it could change and should be left up to the priest. Especially with the priest shortage.
M
malcolm_davies
Guest
Being married with children I cannot see how I could give myself to a parish AND a family - that;s why I support celibacy.
However, once a married man is aged in his 50s or 60s and the children have grown up then I would be open to the idea of a married priest.
However, once a married man is aged in his 50s or 60s and the children have grown up then I would be open to the idea of a married priest.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
One of the main problems with todayās world is that change is always and everywhere assumed to be good and the onus is placed on those support the status quo (always referred to as those āopposing changeā) to justify their position. The reality is those who want change (āoppose the status quoā
) should be the ones who need to justify why a change is necessary.On the issue of the priest shortage I would make two comments that might give pause to those using it to promote married priests.
- It has been documented widely (and I can give figures here in Australia) that orthodox dioceses do not have an issue with vocations. Our smallest and most orthodox diocese with only 35 parishes has 14 seminarians currently studying. The liberal dioceses are the ones with a vocations issue and some liberal groups, aided and abetted by some bishops, have deliberately promoted the vocations crisis as a means of pushing their reform agenda. Again here the diocese with the greatest priest shortage also has a bishop who has publicly stated that this was the work of the Holy Spirit to bring lay leadership closer and who refuses to admit priests from outside the diocese though many are willing.
- We have been misled into believing that the priest levels of the 60ās were ānormalā. In fact the 60ās were a high point for priests and religious. Prior to World War II it was ānormalā for a priest to cover much larger parishes than today and to do often single handed. Frankly our priests have grown lazy in comparison (as one priest himself admitted to me) and no longer want to be put out.
C
CatholicCid
Guest
Iām for Priestly Celibacyā¦ I donāt see how a Priest with both a Parish to serve, a Wife and possibly Children to provide for and be with can give equal attention to both.
At times, Family life and Parish life will overlap and conflict, then the Priest will face the decision to ignore his vows to the Priesthood for the attention his family needs or ignore his family for his duties as a Priest. Thatās a situation one should not be put intoā¦
Even when older and all the children have grown up, one still has a spouse to tend to and be with. Not including their childrens lives and possibly granchildren.
I just think a Priest would be unable to put 100% of himself into both living a life of the Priesthood and as a Family manā¦ Eventually, he will be forced to neglect one side, not giving one part the attention it deserves, and overall neglecting both duties somewhat unfairly and not providing them with the proper attention needed, hurting both his Priestly life and his Family.
At times, Family life and Parish life will overlap and conflict, then the Priest will face the decision to ignore his vows to the Priesthood for the attention his family needs or ignore his family for his duties as a Priest. Thatās a situation one should not be put intoā¦
Even when older and all the children have grown up, one still has a spouse to tend to and be with. Not including their childrens lives and possibly granchildren.
I just think a Priest would be unable to put 100% of himself into both living a life of the Priesthood and as a Family manā¦ Eventually, he will be forced to neglect one side, not giving one part the attention it deserves, and overall neglecting both duties somewhat unfairly and not providing them with the proper attention needed, hurting both his Priestly life and his Family.
J
johnpaullover
Guest
Then the church would have to change the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Furthermore, all preists should be chaste because, 1. priests arenāt rich and canāt provide for their families as well as others, also, if a prest is married, he will be worried about his family and canāt worry about the congregation, or vis a vis.
:yup: :tsktsk: 
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So what about those married priests in the Catholic Church today?Then the church would have to change the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Furthermore, all preists should be chaste because, 1. priests arenāt rich and canāt provide for their families as well as others, also, if a prest is married, he will be worried about his family and canāt worry about the congregation, or vis a vis.
You are being too simplistic and offensive.
It would appear that the writers of the Bible also had this disagreement.
As gez722 shows with the quote from 1 Corinthians, St Paul was for a celibate clergy, at least for the Corintians.
But then was he, when St Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy he saysā¦
1 Timothy 3
1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for Godās church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; 7 moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Hmmmā¦
The Church has always had a married and a celibate clergy, neither is superior.
Having a married clergy in the Latin Church will not, in any way, fix the vocations ācrisisā as those who do have a married clergy are just as needy of priests as the Latin Church.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I have two final things to say on this, as I missed the edit time for my last reply.
This is just one of many reasons why sola scriptura does not work. We must also look to Tradition and what the Church acutally Teaches. In this case, the Church teaches that both are vaild and that this issue is purely of discipline and can and has changed.
Let me finish with this, I do not think that the Latin Church should change this, as the celibate clergy is a long standing traditon for them but I do what everyone in the Latin Church to realize that the Latin Church does have some married clergy and that the norm for the secular priesthood in the Byzantine Churches is the married priest which should not chang either as it is also a long standing, ancient, tradition.
This is just one of many reasons why sola scriptura does not work. We must also look to Tradition and what the Church acutally Teaches. In this case, the Church teaches that both are vaild and that this issue is purely of discipline and can and has changed.
Let me finish with this, I do not think that the Latin Church should change this, as the celibate clergy is a long standing traditon for them but I do what everyone in the Latin Church to realize that the Latin Church does have some married clergy and that the norm for the secular priesthood in the Byzantine Churches is the married priest which should not chang either as it is also a long standing, ancient, tradition.
R
Ric
Guest
View Poll Results: Should preists be celebit?
Yes 60 82.19%
No 5 6.85%
Depends-please explain 8 10.96%
Up to this point there are only 5 correct votes!
Yes 60 82.19%
No 5 6.85%
Depends-please explain 8 10.96%
Up to this point there are only 5 correct votes!
C
CatholicCid
Guest
Donāt you mean 73 correct votes?
K
Kyenta
Guest
Priests should be celibate. They are in a sense married to the Church. No one said that their lives would be easy and without sacrifice.
We need to keep praying for more vocations to the Priesthood and Religious life.
We need to keep praying for more vocations to the Priesthood and Religious life.
C
CatholicCid
Guest
I took another look at 1 Timoth 3 that you gave ByzCath
If a Priest is considered married to the Church, then he fitsd the āthe husband of one wifeā as he is Husband to the Churchā¦
Then the 2nd bolded part could refer to his direct Parish and area as his own householdā¦ The Children being his parishoners. As becoming a Bishop, he would be commanding a Diocese, leaving his household of a Parish.
If a Priest is considered married to the Church, then he fitsd the āthe husband of one wifeā as he is Husband to the Churchā¦
Then the 2nd bolded part could refer to his direct Parish and area as his own householdā¦ The Children being his parishoners. As becoming a Bishop, he would be commanding a Diocese, leaving his household of a Parish.
- Status