Exactly. Celibacy is a matter of Church law. It is not a matter of doctrine. Laws often have exceptions to the general rule.
Ad hominem. Implication: A Pope who disagrees is backwards.
Scripture and Tradition both disagree with you. I suppose, then, that makes Scripture and Tradition backwards as well.
You’re kidding!!! So the priests in the west who have been granted exception to celibacy are the biggest proponents of celibacy for everyone else???
No, not for everyone else. Just for themselves – you know: like the early Church when men lived in continence after ordination.
(Which they did, BTW – see I Cor 7:29) Priests ordained under the pastoral provision are not required to forego their conjugal privileges.
Yes, the opposite of the word “forward” is “backward”, but you’re just getting cute with semantics for the sake of arguing with me.
You can make an argument to support either side of the debate. If Scripture and Tradition were obviously in support of it, then celibacy would be a doctrine, not just a law or a discipline.
You seem to know what the thread is about, so why would you not understand that I was referring to priests when I said “everyone else”? I was talking about all the other priests, who are held to celibacy.No, not for everyone else. Just for themselves – you know: like the early Church when men lived in continence after ordination.
Pete, Beloved. This thread is about married Priests.
Sparkle, there is no question or controversy surrounding the fact that priests and bishops were often married in the early Church. This is about the superiority of being “eunuchs for the Kingdom,” and remember, Paul was a bishop, was celibate, and advocated celibacy as being preferable to marriage. The thing in Timothy means that if a bishop has ever been married, then remarriage in the case of the death of the spouse is out of the question. In the context of the Church, of course, following the Dominical mandate, divorce and remarriage would be utterly out of the question.
Lambichus states that the gods do not hear him who invokes them if he is impure from sexual connections. In Islam, strict continence is required on the pilgrimage to Mecca. It is required for the Hebrew congregation during the theophany at Sinai and before entering the temple. Ancient India, Egypt and Greece enforced the rule that the worshipper must abstain from intercourse during and before worship. In Christianity, continence was required as a preparation for both baptism and Eucharist.
The highest type of Christian was a celibate. Christian teachers praised celibacy, and marriage came to be, in their eyes, only a secondary good for those who were unable to serve continence. The bishops of the Greek Church are always celibates, being chosen from the monks.
The Jains force on their Munis the rule to abstain from all sexual relations; not to discuss topics relating to women, not to contemplate the forms of women. Lust is thus condemned: "Of the myriad vices, lust is the worst."
The Buddhist "Order of Mendicants" was governed by the 227 rules of the Patimokha. Of these, the first four were of specific gravity. A breach of any one of the four rules involved expulsion from the order; and they were, therefore, called the Parajika or the rules as to acts involving defeat.
The first rule says: "Whatsoever Bhikshu—who has taken upon himself the system of self-training and rule of life, and has not thereafter withdrawn from the training or declared his inability to keep the rule—shall have carnal knowledge of any living thing, down even to an animal, he has fallen into defeat, he is no longer in communion". "Withdrawn from the training" was the technical expression for throwing off the robes, retiring from the order, and returning to the world, a step which any member of the order was at liberty to take at any time.
Numa was said to have instituted the "Order of Vestal Virgins". They remained unmarried for thirty years. Burial alive was the penalty for breaking the vow of chastity. The Virgins were distinguished by extraordinary influence and personal dignity. They were treated with marks of respect usually accorded to royalty; thus, on the streets, they were preceded by a lictor and the highest magistrates made way for them.
No.
If Bishops in the Eastern Church cannot be married, then there is a level of mandatory celibacy for priests: If all priests were married, then no one could be a bishop.
Both of these show an misunderstanding of our traditions.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
As it was adopted by the Church as a whole at an ecumenical council I am not sure that we can call it just a discipline any longer but that is the thing, this was done for the Church as a whole in an ecumenical council.
That is not necesarily true. Perhaps with the Lutherans, perhaps even Episcopals, BUT, the lower churches can have the same minister for over 50 years, especially with no hierarchy at all, whatsoever. They may have founded that particular church and stuck with it until they die.
It is the position of the Western Church – and clearly also of the East, which reserves the episcopate to celibates – that celibacy is the superior state. This is in direct consonance with the Lord’s own celibacy and with his expression concerning becoming eunuchs “for the Kingdom.” Celibacy could not be so highly valued if marriage were not deemed to be a very great good.
Yes, and some can change yearly.
I am sorry, but I do not believe that celibacy is “superior” in any way. It is a different way.
I do not see anything about continence there. I have heard this argument before and I find it strange that it is only put forward by Latins who what celibacy enforced upon all priests and some how find it superior.