Priests who switch denominations

[Cajun_Papist]

There has be a fair bit of publicity about former Episcopal Priests who become either lay Catholics or Catholic Priests-indeed the former Episcopal Bishop of our Diocese of SW Forida became a Catholic Priest-

what is less publicized is that there is a constant trickle of former Catholic Priests who become Episcopal Clergy-of course there is Father Cutie of MIami and recently a former Franciscan Priest became Priest in Charge (not Rector = permanent) of a small Episcopal Church just NOrth of us-they are not reordained but accepted into the Episcopal Clergy

What does the Catholic Church say regarding these Priests who leave and join another Church ( there are about 200 in the Episcopal Church) are they still cosidered Priests-it seem that many Catholic think there must be a fatal flaw in them-Fr Cutie has tripled his Congregation -

thoughts?

I have heard of Catholic Priest leaving the Church and becoming Episcopal simply because they want to get married. And they can’t join the Eastern rite because you can only be a married Priest in the Eastern Rite if you were married before you became a Priest. I mean no disrespect to the Anglican Church at all, actually there are many things I admire about it, but I can’t help but think that Catholic Priest who do this are doing for their own selfish reasons and putting their own desires before God. Just my thoughts.

 

[SyroMalankara]

We ought not to keep our vows if they were made under false pretenses or if they are unbiblical. There is no biblical vow of celibacy therefore it’s nonbinding on any believer.

There are some that choose not to marry sure. But there is no mention of any vow of celibacy taken by Jesus or Mary.

You ought to tell the few remaining Lutheran monastic orders this - let them know they go against Luther, his Scripture and they should disband.

svenskakyrkan.se/klostren/OSTANENG.htm

staugustineshouse.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145&Itemid=106

 

[steido01]

Doesn’t seem to offer much support.

And odd little footnote.

GKC

Last time that article was posted on these forums, it didn’t include that footnote. Glad to know that the Catholic Herald reads my posts on CAF.

 

[GKC]

Last time that article was posted on these forums, it didn’t include that footnote. Glad to know that the Catholic Herald reads my posts on CAF.

I missed that, back when. Sorta lets the air out of the balloon.

GKC

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No, scripture has the final word, and the final authority always. Not me.

Untrue. It’s your interpretation (your personal, fallible, interpretation) that has the final word.

 

[cmodrmac]

**this was the point I was hoping would be discussed when I started the thread-
**
" actually there are many things I admire about it, but I can’t help but think that Catholic Priest who do this are doing for their own selfish reasons and putting their own desires before God. Just my thoughts."

can an Anglican Parish really trust this person to teach the faith -sort of like when a Republican becomes a Democrat-they are never fully trusted (with the exception of Reagan)

MY feeling is that you signed on with the Roman Catholics-you knew the rules when you became a Priest-now you do not agree with them???

I feel that I would treat a Priest differently than a lay person who swims the Tiber or joins the THames swim team-in my CHurch we hire our Priests -I would be reluctant to vote to hire a former Roman Catholic Priest-

As for my enbattled Lutheran friends-Luther did the same thing-although I agree that it was for theological reasons initally rather than for female companionship and was not helped by a to say it mildy difficult Bishop of Rome

are not those who leave the RC Church laiticised and have their priestly functions revoked?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You ought to tell the few remaining Lutheran monastic orders this - let them know they go against Luther, his Scripture and they should disband.

svenskakyrkan.se/klostren/OSTANENG.htm

staugustineshouse.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145&Itemid=106

That would be silly. No Lutheran order would excommunicate a member for opting out of celibacy at a later time. Nor would it cause a great controversy and scandal if one were to get married in the future.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That would be silly. No Lutheran order would excommunicate a member for opting out of celibacy at a later time. Nor would it cause a great controversy and scandal if one were to get married in the future.

Sure, no Catholic priest who goes through the proper channels and wishes to be laicized and married is excommunicated, nor is there scandal.

Would the Lutheran orders not find it scandalous if a “professed monastic” still claimed to be following poverty and obedience, but suddenly bought a Lamborghini and ignored his district president and to pray using Lutheran worship books? Can a Lutheran monastic ‘opt out’ and in of these vows at will as well?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Sure, no Catholic priest who goes through the proper channels and wishes to be laicized and married is excommunicated, nor is there scandal.

Would the Lutheran orders not find it scandalous if a “professed monastic” still claimed to be following poverty and obedience, but suddenly bought a Lamborghini and ignored his district president and to pray using Lutheran worship books? Can a Lutheran monastic ‘opt out’ and in of these vows at will as well?

There are but few Lutheran religious communities; celibacy is rare.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I believe there is a difference between choosing not to marry and taking a vow of celibacy. One is turning oneself off to Gods will. For example let’s say someone takes a vow of celibacy and later they choose to marry and God gives them someone to marry like my hero and Katharine Von Bora. Many folks in the 16th century were forced into celibacy and the monastic life due to their being unable to inherit. This is a grave injustice. Also, the bible doesn’t say celibacy is higher than marriage. In fact marriage is the first human institution created by God for humans.

Are you really sure you want to declare that infant baptism is not in scripture? That is not the position of your church nor of Catholic Answers.

We ought not to keep our vows if they were made under false pretenses or if they are unbiblical. There is no biblical vow of celibacy therefore it’s nonbinding on any believer.

There are some that choose not to marry sure. But there is no mention of any vow of celibacy taken by Jesus or Mary.

This is ridiculous. Martin Luther was not forced or pressured in any way into taking a vow of celibacy. He entered religion by his own free choice and had plenty of opportunity for discernment. You have not demonstrated that celibacy is “unbiblical.” Martin Luther is like a bratty kid that told his mother that cleaning his room is unbiblical because it’s not in the Bible. I will not respond to you any further on this topic.

 

[steido01]

This is ridiculous. Martin Luther was not forced or pressured in any way into taking a vow of celibacy. He entered religion by his own free choice and had plenty of opportunity for discernment.

True enough.

You have not demonstrated that celibacy is “unbiblical.”

Celibacy, if chosen for the correct reasons, can be beneficial - I think there is no doubt there. Paul is clear, and Christ Himself leaves no doubt. When it is selected for the wrong reasons, however, (ex: intentionally withholding from a spouse, being forced into the monastic lifestyle due to socio-political injustices, etc.), it seems to be in direct contradiction to the commands given us in the very beginning: Genesis 1:22, Genesis 1:29… I think that’s the point House was trying to make.

Martin Luther is like a bratty kid that told his mother that cleaning his room is unbiblical because it’s not in the Bible. I will not respond to you any further on this topic.

Q, that’s an unfortunate cartoon of Martin Luther, there. That response sounds like something that cartoon would say. You usually bring a tremendous amount of information and thought to these conversations. I hope you’ll come back.

 

[Faithdancer]

Wow, I don’t think I could insult that many disparate groups of people in one post if I tried.

And, I might add, God bless you for not trying!

 

[Faithdancer]

That would be silly. No Lutheran order would excommunicate a member for opting out of celibacy at a later time. Nor would it cause a great controversy and scandal if one were to get married in the future.

Yes, I think it’s important to remember that Paul teaches in 1st Corinthians chapter 7 that both marriage and celibacy are equally blessed states. The change of heart and mind from the state of celibacy to marriage for a Roman Catholic priest leaves him two options: laicization and remaining Roman Catholic, or changing denominations, getting married, and continuing to do God’s work in ministry.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

True enough.

Celibacy, if chosen for the correct reasons, can be beneficial - I think there is no doubt there. Paul is clear, and Christ Himself leaves no doubt. When it is selected for the wrong reasons, however, (ex: intentionally withholding from a spouse, being forced into the monastic lifestyle due to socio-political injustices, etc.), it seems to be in direct contradiction to the commands given us in the very beginning: Genesis 1:22, Genesis 1:29… I think that’s the point House was trying to make.

Q, that’s an unfortunate cartoon of Martin Luther, there. That response sounds like something that cartoon would say. You usually bring a tremendous amount of information and thought to these conversations. I hope you’ll come back.

Sorry if my comments were offensive. My “brat” comment should not be taken as a characterization of Luther personally (I did not mean to say that he threw daily tantrums or anything like that) but a characterization of this particular argument, i.e., that it is a bratty argument. The response is indeed the response of a As I already explained, I think his argument is totally bogus due to the false premises (that celibacy is impossible, that celibacy is always sinful short of a miracle, that something must be explicitly taught in the Bible for it to be “biblical” and so on). You are right to describe my example as the response of a cartoon Luther since his argument regarding celibacy is not fitting of a man of his erudition.

I agree that no one should be coerced into religious vows, but this does not apply to Luther, who entered religion freely on his own initiative. I agree that coercing someone into an unwanted vow of celibacy would be evil, but not because celibacy is inferior to marriage, much less a violation of God’s commandments. HH and Luther are arguing that a vow of celibacy is not binding (and immoral) when, on the contrary, a vow is by its nature binding.

Understand that it is difficult when someone broad-brushes all the great celibate religious men that Catholics admire as living contrary to God’s word (among other charges). I think constructive Lutheran-Catholic dialogue needs to move past Luther. Dredging up four-hundred-year-old polemics will not help, just as Catholics need to put aside writings like “Exsurge Domine” or Fr. O’Hare’s book when dialoguing with present-day Lutherans.

 

[pablope]

No, scripture has the final word, and the final authority always. Not me.

Well…you just made a declaration…that the bible does not make…that it is the final word and final authority.

So how does the Bible make known its final word and how does it exercise its final authority?

 

[pablope]

pablope;12073260:

biblical thing to do is to allow folks to follow their conscience. If they opt out of their monastery then more power to them.

Quote:
But is somebody took to heart what ST. Paul taught about celibacy…is that being unbiblical?
Paul never mentioned or taught that one should take a vow of celibacy.

I am not asking what Paul mentioned or not…

The question is something about what is Biblical…But if somebody took to heart what ST. Paul taught about celibacy…is that being unbiblical?

It a yes or no…biblical?

Quote:

But you are already making a judgement…are you not, is saying something is unbiblical?
You are then the final decision maker on what is biblical and unbiblical?

No. No more making a judgment than if I said that requiring someone believe in pink unicorns on mars is unbiblical. The scriptures no where mention pink unicorns or their living arrangements, no judgment is needed.

Well…when you are saying “No”…you are making a judgement…your own judgement.

So who wis the final decision maker on what is biblical or unbiblical? You? And what is your basis for making that judgement?

Quote:
So splitting altars, dividing Christianity…is a great service to mankind, would you say?
His great service was preaching the gospel.

What gospel is that? A gospel that split Christianity and the altars…and the resulting countless denominations…do you call this a great service to manking?

That the Roman Catholic Church obstinately refused to give him a fair hearing is sad and unfortunate. Hopefully our altars will one day be reunited, even if its in the life to come.

Really? Can you cite your source?

Quote:
In this case, what is the Biblical thing to do…empty the monasteries, cause their downfall, cause disobedience…or to pray for reform and trust God to reform the monasteries?
The biblical thing to do is to allow folks to follow their conscience. If they opt out of their monastery then more power to them.

But those who went followed their conscience.

So what does your conscience say…if something needs reform…what is the Biblical thing to do…empty the monasteries, cause their downfall, cause disobedience…or to pray for reform and trust God to reform the monasteries?

 

[Faithdancer]

Well…you just made a declaration…that the bible does not make…that it is the final word and final authority.

So how does the Bible make known its final word and how does it exercise its final authority?

Either the Bible is the final authority, or the Catholic magisterium is. By definition, there cannot be two “final authorities.” To assert that the Bible is not the final authority is to assert that it is incomplete. To assert that it is incomplete is to assert that it is imperfect, since if it is perfect than nothing more can be added to it to make it “more perfect.” Finally, if the Bible is God’s divinely inspired word, then to assert that it is imperfect is to assert that God’s word is imperfect.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Catholic Church teaches that God moved the human authors of
Scripture so that they “consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (Dei Verbum 11). This means that Scripture is “perfect” because it contains everything that God wanted it to contain. This does not mean that Scripture will contain an explicit answer to every possible question someone could ever have that is absolutely unambiguous to everyone who would read it. The task remains to discern the meaning of Scripture. When someone comes along teaching a novel doctrine (e.g. the “imputation” of the “active obedience of Christ”), who is to decide whether it is taught in Scripture. Someone says it is the obvious teaching of the Bible and essential to the Gospel when I know that it is nowhere taught anywhere in Scripture. Who is to decide between us?

You cannot pit Scripture against the Church. They serve different purposes. Scripture is a deposit of divine revelation while the Chruch’s magisterium is a living organ of teaching. Scripture says what it says and does not change. The living magisterium can continually issue definitions to respond to changing circumstances. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent? The Gospel is preached by the Catholic Church through her ministers, who are sent by Christ, receiving the great commission through apostolic succession.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Either the Bible is the final authority, or the Catholic magisterium is. By definition, there cannot be two “final authorities.” To assert that the Bible is not the final authority is to assert that it is incomplete. To assert that it is incomplete is to assert that it is imperfect, since if it is perfect than nothing more can be added to it to make it “more perfect.” Finally, if the Bible is God’s divinely inspired word, then to assert that it is imperfect is to assert that God’s word is imperfect.

Which is the final authority? The Constitution or the Supreme Court which interprets it?

The Bible is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. The following will help you navigate that issue:

MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate [between Patrick Madrid and James White on sola scriptura] James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

 

[Tomdstone]

Morally wrong? Do you hate the Catholic Church that much? Let’s look at the priest who was scandalized and quit the Catholic Church. Do you honestly believe he thought it was morally wrong to be Catholic? Or, was he taking the easy road out? I will. say that I have much more respect for an honest Episcopalian than I have for for a scandalized Catholic priest that switched to another denomination.

I think it is all right to take into account human frailty and not to pass judgment on others. If a priest is put into a situation where he observes scandals which are not being addressed properly, he may come to believe that celibacy is not for him any longer. The first Pope, St. Peter, was married so celibacy is not an ironclad and unchangeable rule of the Roman Catholic Church.
What if a priest wants to marry, but still remain a priest. What should he do in such a case?