Priesthood and celibacy question for my fellow Easterners (and Latin brethren as well šŸ˜Š)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ziapueblo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is my perspective:

The Latin Church is, wherever possible, sacrificing her traditions for modernism. If she were to allow married priests, it would not be for the right reasons. If this were a push for traditionalism like many are claiming, people would demand that married priests abstain from sexual relations after ordination, as that was the Latin tradition before celibacy was enforced.

Any changes made will be viewed by our culture (including most Catholics in the pews) as the Church stepping into ā€œthe modern eraā€, and embracing change.

Latin Catholics need to grow some spines.
 
ziapueblo said:
He recalls that already ā€œin the ancient Churchā€, that is, in the first millennium, ā€œmarried men could receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders only if they committed themselves to sexual abstinenceā€.
Click to expand...
Honestly, historically speaking that is truth. Its a fact. Nevertheless, East decided not to follow it and to abolish this. Yet, even East understands that there is link between celibacy and priesthood. After all, final and full form of Priesthood is Episcopate. What we usually call ā€œpriesthoodā€ is office of presbyter but that is not accurate. I thought that before doing their priestly duties (sacrifice, therefore liturgyā€¦ so not counting vespers etc) Eastern clerics abstain from sexual relations for a certain amount of time, as a link to ancient custom of continence. East did make rules on continence softer but they are still a reality.

Of course, Eastern practice is legitimate in itself.
 
Last edited:
ā€œWe must listen to the testimonies that emanate from the Eastern Catholic Churches. Several members of these Churches have clearly emphasized that the priestly state enters into tension with the conjugal state. [ā€¦] The Eastern married clergy is in crisis. The divorce of priests has become an area of ecumenical tension among Orthodox patriarchies. [ā€¦] Why does the Catholic Church accept the presence of a married clergy in some united Eastern Churches? In the light of the affirmation of the recent magisterium on the ontological link between the priesthood and celibacy, I think that this acceptance has the aim of promoting a gradual evolution towards the practice of celibacy, which would take place not by disciplinary means but for properly spiritual and pastoral reasons.ā€

Is Cardinal Sarah throwing stones in a glass house?


ZP
 
Christ Himself was celibate on earth and every Catholic priest participates in the one Priesthood of Christ (to be perfectly clear, He is both Priest and Victim). So there is probably a case for the ontological nature of the celibate priesthood.

My pastor is a married UGCC priest who has 2 parishes, is a hospital chaplain, makes sick calls almost every day and somehow finds the time to do gardening. Honestly, I donā€™t know how he does it but may God continue to bless him with good health, spiritual and physical.
 
ziapueblo said:
How do theological comments like this sit with you? ā€¦
In his text, Cardinal Sarah recalls that ā€œthere is an ontological-sacramental link between priesthood and celibacy. Any weakening of this link would put into question the Magisterium of the [Second Vatican] Council and Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I implore Pope Francis to protect us definitively from such a possibility by vetoing any weakening of the law of priestly celibacy, even if limited to one region anotherā€. Further, Sarah goes so far as to describe the possibility of ordaining married men as ā€œa pastoral catastrophe, an ecclesiological confusion and an obscuring of the understanding of the priesthoodā€.
Click to expand...
IMHO, it is another reason why there will not be a reunion between Orthodox and Catholic at least anytime soon if ever.,
 
Margaret_Ann said:
Christ Himself was celibate on earth and every Catholic priest participates in the one Priesthood of Christ (to be perfectly clear, He is both Priest and Victim). So there is probably a case for the ontological nature of the celibate priesthood.
Click to expand...
I think the the choice of Peter, in and of itself, is enough to reject the notion.
AlNg said:
IMHO, it is another reason why there will not be a reunion between Orthodox and Catholic at least anytime soon if ever.,
Click to expand...
May I make a Yogi Berra nomination?

:crazy_face: šŸ¤£ šŸ˜

That said, though, youā€™re on to something. Iā€™m looking for a more wholesome analogy than
peeing in the punchbowl
, but Iā€™m coming up empty.

I think the comments are flat out destructive.
 
dochawk said:
I think the the choice of Peter, in and of itself, is enough to reject the notion.
Click to expand...
Only if you overlook this:
ziapueblo said:
He recalls that already ā€œin the ancient Churchā€, that is, in the first millennium, ā€œmarried men could receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders only if they committed themselves to sexual abstinenceā€.
Click to expand...
Tis_Bearself said:
Maybe I should have visited the shrine of St. Alexis Toth after all when I was up near it.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, I donā€™t understand your comment.
 
dochawk said:
I think the the choice of Peter, in and of itself, is enough to reject the notion.
Click to expand...
The assumption that Peter was still married at the time he was called to ministry is quite unlikely. No tradition exists with regards to his family. The gospels mention his mother-in-law and implies she was the woman who ran his household. Highly probable he was a widower. Almost a stretch of the imagination to assume otherwise.
 
To the best of my knowledge he is not a saint in the RCC or Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Heā€™s not. He quit the Catholic Church and joined the Orthodox. Thatā€™s why I didnā€™t go to the shrine.

If the Latin rite bishop hadnā€™t been so horrible to him, and hadnā€™t refused to accept him being assigned there, he probably wouldnā€™t have quit.

It bothers me, that whole situation.
I would hope he is in Heaven
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Maybe I should have visited the shrine of St. Alexis Toth after all when I was up near it.
Click to expand...
Fr. Alexis Toth was a married (or widower, I forget which) Eastern Catholic priest. He presented himself to Archbishop John Ireland to ask him for faculties so he could serve the Eastern Catholic faithful. Archbishop Ireland saw the wedding ring which he wore on his finger, shouted: ā€œGet out of my sight and never come back!ā€ Fr. Toth did so. He left the Eastern Catholic Church (he was Byzantine Catholic) and started an Orthodox parish. According to Wikipedia he led 20,000 Eastern Catholic faithful into Orthodoxy. He is considered the father of Orthodoxy in America, although Archbishop Ireland could have that title since he drove away Fr. Toth. If Archbishop Ireland had been more accommodating, 20,000 Byzantine Catholics never would have left the Church.
Click to expand...
 
Tis_Bearself said:
If the Latin rite bishop hadnā€™t been so horrible to him, and hadnā€™t refused to accept him being assigned there, he probably wouldnā€™t have quit.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

The stories told about the encounter between Father Alexis and Bishop Ireland are interesting but not especially well-documented. There was, at the time, a fundamental problem of Bishops in Europe assigning priests to immigrant communities in America that affected many groups, but was particularly difficult for Greek Catholics. That particular problems was resolved, for the short terms, by the establishment of Greek Catholic eparchies in the US.

Father Alexis also undertook a mission to have other join him. Of the clergy, three or four priests - one his brother - joined him at first; all but Fr. Alexis returned to the Catholic Church. He was more effective in his efforts to recruit laity, where the main issue was trusteeship. His work included much litigation. much of it not very pretty, over ownership of parish property.
 
Last edited:
Because technically speaking, he was a Catholic priest and he left the Catholic church.
This is a sin. Although there were likely mitigating circumstances, and also he switched to a church that has valid sacraments, which takes care of a lot of problems.

Also, Iā€™m not aware of his having Latin or other Catholic church recognition as a saint, as someone else said. That means ā€œhopeā€ is the most I can do as the Church has not made a more definitive statement like they do for beati and Catholic saints. I would similarly ā€œhopeā€ that my favorite Servants of God and Venerables in the Catholic Church are in heaven.
 
Last edited:
40.png
ziapueblo:
The propers (OCA) for Fr Alexis include interesting ideas such as the following:

Kontakion ā€” Tone 5
He called back the sheep who had been led astray

Stichera at ā€œLord I Callā€:
[He] exposed the error of ignorance and led his people to the true faith.
ā€¦ concealing his virtues from others ā€¦
ā€¦ guides his sheep back to the knowledge of truth ā€¦
He led them to the Ark of Salvation casting off the yoke of a false union

Doxastichon at ā€œLord, I Callā€
ā€¦ dispelling the gloom of ignorance, proclaiming the Truth to those deceived by error ā€¦

Stichera at the Aposticha
ā€¦ his words have put the hard of heart to shame showing all where to seek the Truth.

Stichera at the Praises
You taught us how we should live in and showed us where to seek the Truth ā€¦
ā€¦ you exposed the error of false doctrines ā€¦

I assume that the BCC who venerate Fr Alexis have something else in mind regarding his glorification.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Because technically speaking, he was a Catholic priest and he left the Catholic church.
This is a sin. Although there were likely mitigating circumstances, and also he switched to a church that has valid sacraments, which takes care of a lot of problems.
Click to expand...
I believe, at least in my reading of it, is that the Balamand statement has spoken to these issues of Greek Catholics joining Orthodox Churches and visa versa.
Tis_Bearself said:
Iā€™m not aware of his having Latin or other Catholic church recognition as a saint, as someone else said.
Click to expand...
Not ā€œofficiallyā€ but I know of many Byzantine Catholics, laity and clergy alike, who venerate St Alexis Toth and have him on their icon corner.

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top