M
Markie_Boy
Guest
Vocation for me personally? I am married with children. Is this a possibility?
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Ah…very doubtful, but there is always the Diaconate. You might wanna look into it. The Role of Deacons: Then and Now
I somehow got the impression that you were much younger and single.
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
Oh - we’ll thanks!
I talked to our priest about deacons - as we currently don’t have an active one. He said he didn’t think it was a good idea now, with my kids at home from pre-school to middle school ages. I spend a lot of time self educating, reading and listening on-line while at work.
Going to help with one, possibly two CCD classes this year, we’ll take it from there.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Wesrock, I think you mean ‘continence’, not ‘celibacy’, don’t you? After all, ‘celibate’ only means ‘unmarried’; ‘continence’ seems to speak to the question of ‘marital relations’ which Duane (and, it seems, you) raise here.
In any case, why are we reducing the notion of marriage to ‘sexual relations’? That’s not at all what’s on the table here, right? If it’s the discipline of celibacy we’re talking about, then what’s really in play is the question of a life-long, sacramental commitment to one’s spouse in all facets of the couple’s lives… not just whether or how often they engage in sex!
I mean, continence is an issue in the context of service in the Jewish temple, but it’s not really even relevant in this context, is it? The discussion here is whether there’s a real benefit to the normative sacrifice of something that is sacramental and very good (i.e., marriage) in favor of another good (celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom).
I tend to look at the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as the clue that he was a widower.Was she still alive? There is a clue in the bible that seems to say no to the first. From Markoesn’t giving up everything include the wife, or was she dead?
M
Mintaka
Guest
None of our various Eastern friends are saying this, so I’m going to say this.
In the Rites where there have traditionally been Catholic married priests, and where married priests are allowed to continue having sex with their wives, the spouses refrain from sex for the whole day before any day when the priest is going to say Mass, and during various other prescribed times and even days of the week.
These Rites usually also continue the ancient custom of all couples fasting from sex on any day when the Church is having fasting and abstinence, and for 24 hours before one of them wants to receive Communion. (All of which Latin/Roman Rite Catholics also used to do, up until the 1600’s or so, when fasting rules were relaxed.)
Now, in the Latin/Roman Rite, the sexual fasting rules aren’t currently imposed on deacons and their wives, or on ex-Protestant priests and their wives. But if we went to a large scale married priesthood, obviously we would have to go back to the old fasting rules for priests and deacons and their wives. And frankly, that would only be fair if we went back to the old sexual fasting rules for all couples. (Which would make practicing NFP a lot easier for Catholic couples with grave reasons, because the old sexual fasting times took up a good third of the year, if you added them all together. And hey, it would make reunion with the Orthodox easier, too!)
So yeah. Let’s totally normalize married priests in the Roman Rite. And let’s see how many married couples really want to participate, when there can be no daily Mass unless there’s no daily married nookie.
Sigh. Everybody wants to change stuff, but nobody wants to think about the implications.
In the Rites where there have traditionally been Catholic married priests, and where married priests are allowed to continue having sex with their wives, the spouses refrain from sex for the whole day before any day when the priest is going to say Mass, and during various other prescribed times and even days of the week.
These Rites usually also continue the ancient custom of all couples fasting from sex on any day when the Church is having fasting and abstinence, and for 24 hours before one of them wants to receive Communion. (All of which Latin/Roman Rite Catholics also used to do, up until the 1600’s or so, when fasting rules were relaxed.)
Now, in the Latin/Roman Rite, the sexual fasting rules aren’t currently imposed on deacons and their wives, or on ex-Protestant priests and their wives. But if we went to a large scale married priesthood, obviously we would have to go back to the old fasting rules for priests and deacons and their wives. And frankly, that would only be fair if we went back to the old sexual fasting rules for all couples. (Which would make practicing NFP a lot easier for Catholic couples with grave reasons, because the old sexual fasting times took up a good third of the year, if you added them all together. And hey, it would make reunion with the Orthodox easier, too!)
So yeah. Let’s totally normalize married priests in the Roman Rite. And let’s see how many married couples really want to participate, when there can be no daily Mass unless there’s no daily married nookie.
Sigh. Everybody wants to change stuff, but nobody wants to think about the implications.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Excellent idea!Oh - we’ll thanks!
I talked to our priest about deacons - as we currently don’t have an active one. He said he didn’t think it was a good idea now, with my kids at home from pre-school to middle school ages. I spend a lot of time self educating, reading and listening on-line while at work.
Going to help with one, possibly two CCD classes this year, we’ll take it from there.
I think you’ll do a great job and CCD can be very challenging because kids today are faced with truckloads of moral rubbish that is way counter to our most holy faith, not to mention the a-C propaganda that they will encounter from some of their n-C classmates who really don’t know any better most of the time.
If you can mix some good apologetics in with your catechism lessons it will help them a lot. Kids always wanna know WHY when they are taught about the faith…not just what we believe. Try not to make it too easy for them.
I suspect that with your interests here on CAF you will make a great asset to the RE program in the parish and I’ll keep you in my prayers.P.S. I might also suggest that you become an altar server and a Eucharistic Minister which will do 2 things. Get you more involved in the Mass and serve to show your pastor that you are a good candidate for the diaconate as soon as he feels you are able.
(But don’t tell him I said that…
)
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Good point.P.S. I might also suggest that you become an altar server and a Eucharistic Minister which will do 2 things. Get you more involved in the Mass and serve to show your pastor that you are a good candidate for the diaconate as soon as he feels you are able.
Some of the best homilies I have heard were preached by deacons.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Indeed! Though our parish priests are amazing! It’s a homiletic 1-2 punch.Good point.
Some of the best homilies I have heard were preached by deacons.
E
e_c
Guest
This is an understandable intuition, but it is not true at all. It has recently been very publicly spoken of as just the opposite - little geographical pockets of exceptions due to cultural circumstances.
Still unlikely, for every normal reason given.
Maybe we should only ordain men from the Middle East? If we are really going to do ONLY what Jesus did…
Where was Mrs. Peter when he went to Antioch, and then to Rome? Or out camping in the wilderness with the Lord and 11 other men? Etc. It is unreasonable to think he lived as a normal married person after the first moments of his vocation.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Excuse me, but the Church in Rome has preserved across the centuries the memory of Peter’s wife and their daughter.
As a theologian who taught Church history, I much prefer what Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius have left us to the suppositions of anonymous posters on the Internet whose musings and speculations are based on their own ideas and concepts and do not take account of – and are seemingly unaware of – what is actually taught in Pontifical Institutes of higher learning.
I have no idea either why you would think that his vocation would obviate his married life. Travel related to business and trade then were far from unknown…there were trade routes, after all…but the distance and mode of transport would involve separations of long periods.
E
eddie_too
Guest
the faithful’s interpretation of the words of sacred scripture are not the basis, if by basis we mean the determining factor, for any catholic teaching.
since the Church is the bride of the catholic priest, why would he want a second bride? to whom would he owe his first loyalty?
and, is it right to expect either the Church or the priest’s human bride to accept second place in the priest’s loyalty?
since the Church is the bride of the catholic priest, why would he want a second bride? to whom would he owe his first loyalty?
and, is it right to expect either the Church or the priest’s human bride to accept second place in the priest’s loyalty?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
In fact, there are priests who are in the situation you describe…being a priest and being married. It is by way of dispensation through papal rescript in the West but as a matter of course in the Catholic Churches of the East.
E
e_c
Guest
And that is the spirit of what I am getting at, though perhaps, given the striking absence of her mention in both Luke 4 and Matthew 8, she was already deceased… especially since the mother-in-law then gets up and waits on the guests, which would have been the job of her daughter.
But, you say that trade and business called for travel… Of course. But Peter was not trading, nor was he involved in any ordinary business.
I am aware of the tradition you mention… Though the textual sources you give reduce to one, since Eusebius apparently solely relies on Clement. The other textual sources I’ve seen concerning the family of Peter (the Acts of Peter and the Liber Pontificalis) have some credibility issues, though Augustine gave authority to the first. Pope Damasus apparently also mentions Petronilla, his supposed daughter, in his Acts of Nereus and Achilleus (though I can’t find the text online), but that comes several hundred years later. It is really all about the name itself, Petronilla, and some other circumstantial evidence dealing with the tomb.
It is also strange that we get a name for his daughter but not for his wife. Wouldn’t her tomb have been just as well preserved by the Romans, telling us her name?
Even if it is granted that his wife and daughter followed him around to some extent, and did die with him in Rome, it still seems unreasonable to think it would have been anything like a normal family life. And again, one would think Luke might have given them at least a mention in Acts. My guess is they were not there, and that Petronilla was a disciple and spiritual daughter rather than a biological one. But that is all it is - a guess.
I studied Church history in a good, accredited seminary with a truly exceptional and orthodox professor - very widely published (most recently by Oxford University Press) and yet not a hint of modernism! Though, I confess not remembering the slightest mention of this topic. Maybe I was sitting too far back.
Sorry to have annoyed you… I do usually enjoy reading your posts, as I tend to learn quite a bit!
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Of course he was in business. He was a fisherman by trade. Employing others
I studied Church history in a good, accredited seminary with a truly exceptional and orthodox professor - very widely published (most recently by Oxford University Press) and yet not a hint of modernism! Though, I confess not remembering the slightest mention of this topic. Maybe I was sitting too far back.
Well knowing the Church in Rome as well as I do, I will go with the memories preserved there, and with Clement of Alexandria, unquestionably more than someone’s guess
E
e_c
Guest
It doesn’t seem he went to fish in Antioch or Rome though… even if the Tiber could have actually sustained life back then! Clearly, he went to preach.
He left his net once… He left his net a second time after the Resurrection… Should we think he went back to it again? Seems strange to think so. It also doesn’t sound feasible to fish for a living “on the road…” Fishing requires some more investment, of time and money, and you have to stay by the water. Of course Paul made tents.
And certainly, we aren’t to believe that Peter brought his whole commercial fishing operation with him, in addition to his wife and daughter! If that is the case, he must have been bi-locating.
It is plenty fair to go with the tradition - but it is not a strong one. I know the Roman Church as well… I live there! It is wonderful, but not legend-proof.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Peter did not leave his father…James and John left their father, Zebedee.
And with that correction of an error in fact, I will simply say, as a reply to the rest of what you have written, that I doubt your former theology professor would be any more impressed with your attempt to advise him about a topic that he lectures and publishes upon any more than this retired theology professor does.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Rather than bemoaning the works of darkness, would you consider helping us put on the armor of light? I’m certain that the readers here would appreciate learning what the ‘Pontifical Institutes of higher learning’ teach. Would you mind quoting and discussing these texts – either here or in a new thread – so that we can benefit from Clement’s and Eusebius’ wisdom?
Thanks!
- Status