Time For Married Priests!

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_9th_Doctor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Latin Rite has agreed to disagree on this point in an effort for reunification with the East. Again and again, read the article I posted, the Latin Rite has never stated that it agrees with the Eastern Churches allowing their priests and deacons to continue consumating their marriages. The Latin Rite states in its history that even when St. Paul writes about married clergy, he is implying that they must abstain from sex. Abstinence is the reason why manditory celibacy was issued.
There is no “agree to disagree” on this point. The fact is that for all of recorded history in the East, priests have been allowed to be married and to have children with their wives. Anything else is simply fabrication. It’s not something that was developed later. The Latin Church has no right to “disagree” on the Eastern Churches “allowing” their priests to consumate their marriages regardless. The Latin Church is not the be-all and end-all of the Catholic Church, and doesn’t determine policy for other Catholic Rites, nor should it; the practice of married priests in the East existed LONG before the schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

Those who say that the practice developed in the East in the 600s are also incorrect, because the Oriental Churches, which split in the 400s, such as the Copts, the Armenians, and the Syrians, also practice a married, non-celibate priesthood, as do the Assyrian Apostolic Christians, who split even earlier.

That Latin tradition of priestly celibacy is valid, but it’s not now, nor has it ever been the rule of the entire Catholic Church. Latins don’t have to adopt it, but we shouldn’t speak as if it’s the “true rule” of the Catholic Faith. It’s not, nor has it ever been, despite even St. Paul’s advice (not Inspired command) on the matter.

Peace and God bless!
 
After careful consideration of the issue I have come to the conclusion that the church has to allow priests to marry.

The church only implemented the celebacy rule because it didn’t want to lose land and money to priest’s offspring who didn’t become priests and who they couldn’t control.

When is the church going to wake up and see that in order to survive it has to modernise and allow priests to marry???
The Church does not and should never modernize.

If it allows married priests well so be it.

I follow the Church, and the Church follows Christ.

If Christ wants to return to a married priesthood thats fine with me, if he wants priests to say celibate well God will provide.

But remember in the “Im Behind the Church, which is Behind Christ” idealogy. There is no room for the ‘modern’ world.
 
There is no “agree to disagree” on this point. The fact is that for all of recorded history in the East, priests have been allowed to be married and to have children with their wives. Anything else is simply fabrication. It’s not something that was developed later. The Latin Church has no right to “disagree” on the Eastern Churches “allowing” their priests to consumate their marriages regardless. The Latin Church is not the be-all and end-all of the Catholic Church, and doesn’t determine policy for other Catholic Rites, nor should it; the practice of married priests in the East existed LONG before the schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.
In her magisterial statements, the Catholic Church has often spoken of the Eastern practice regarding celibacy. The Church always uses guarded language, not wanting to widen the breach between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. **But she has never said—never even implied—that the Eastern practice stands on par with her own discipline regarding celibacy. **

crisismagazine.com/october2006/ryland.htm
 
There is no “agree to disagree” on this point. The fact is that for all of recorded history in the East, priests have been allowed to be married and to have children with their wives. Anything else is simply fabrication. It’s not something that was developed later. The Latin Church has no right to “disagree” on the Eastern Churches “allowing” their priests to consumate their marriages regardless. The Latin Church is not the be-all and end-all of the Catholic Church, and doesn’t determine policy for other Catholic Rites, nor should it; the practice of married priests in the East existed LONG before the schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

Those who say that the practice developed in the East in the 600s are also incorrect, because the Oriental Churches, which split in the 400s, such as the Copts, the Armenians, and the Syrians, also practice a married, non-celibate priesthood, as do the Assyrian Apostolic Christians, who split even earlier.

That Latin tradition of priestly celibacy is valid, but it’s not now, nor has it ever been the rule of the entire Catholic Church. Latins don’t have to adopt it, but we shouldn’t speak as if it’s the “true rule” of the Catholic Faith. It’s not, nor has it ever been, despite even St. Paul’s advice (not Inspired command) on the matter.

Peace and God bless!
 
Those who say that the practice developed in the East in the 600s are also incorrect, because the Oriental Churches, which split in the 400s, such as the Copts, the Armenians, and the Syrians, also practice a married, non-celibate priesthood, as do the Assyrian Apostolic Christians, who split even earlier.
Thus Eusebius declares that it is befitting that priests and those occupied in the ministry should observe continence (Demonst. Evangel., I, C. ix), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem urges that the minister of the altar who serves God properly holds himself aloof from women (Cat. xii, 25). St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, “even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands”.

But the passage most confidently appealed to is one of St. Epiphanius where the holy doctor first of all speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles (Haer., xlviii, 9), and then in a later passage seems to describe this rule or canon in some detail. “Holy Church”, he says, “respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical cannons are strictly attended to” (Haer., lix, 4). Epiphanius goes on, however, to explain that there are localities in which priests and deacons continue to have children, but he argues against the practice as most unbecoming and urges that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost has always in the past shown her disapproval of such procedure. But we need hardly insist that all this is very inadequate evidence (even when supplemented by some few citations from St. Ephraem and other Orientals) to support the contention that a general rule of celibacy existed from Apostolic times. Writers in the fourth century were prone to describe many practices (e.g. the Lenten fast of forty days) as of Apostolic institution which certainly had no claim to be so regarded. On the other hand, there are facts which tell the other way. The statement of Clement of Alexandria at an earlier date is open to no ambiguity. After commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, Clement adds: “All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be priest or deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children” (Stromateiae, III, xiii). Not less explicit is the testimony given by the church historian, Socrates. He declares that in the Eastern Churches neither priests nor even bishops were bound to separate from their wives, though he recognized that a different custom obtained in Thessaly and in Greece (H.E., Bk. I, cap. xi) Socrates tells the story of Paphnutius rising in the assembly and objecting to an enactment which he considered to rigorous in behalf of celibacy. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling should abjure matrimony according to the ancient tradition of the Church, but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been united. And these sentiments he expressed although himself without experience of marriage. Some attempt has been made to discredit this story, but nearly all modern scholars (notably Bishop von Hefele, with his most recent editor, Dom H. Leclercq) accept it without reserve. The fact that the attitude of Bishop Paphnutius differs but little from the existing practice of the Eastern Churches is alone a strong point in its favour. These testimonies, it will be observed, are from Eastern sources and indicate, no doubt, the prevailing Oriental discipline. Wernz expressed the opinion that from the earliest days of the Church the custom, if not the law, was for bishops, priests, and all in major orders, to observe celibacy.

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

“Celibacy” in this case means, abstaining from sex. By the time of Nicea, both East and West had the same practice, married priests must abstain.
 
To the pious reader, yes indeed there were married priests in the early church, that cannot be argued against. But history shows that there was a debate in the east over what state in which their clerics should live. It seems that the general opinion is that they should abstain and this was regarded as an apostolic tradition. Those who did not abstain were isolated. Given how there was debate over this, shows how serious this discipline was taken and that it is indeed apostolic. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Catholic Copts have since re-instituted that ancient practice, their married clergy are to abstain. I have no problem with married clergy in Latin Rite, as long as we re-institute the ancient tradition. However I am just noteing that it is far easier to follow abstinence when one is not married, which is why the Latin Rite made celibate and single manditory.
 
In her magisterial statements, the Catholic Church has often spoken of the Eastern practice regarding celibacy. The Church always uses guarded language, not wanting to widen the breach between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. **But she has never said—never even implied—that the Eastern practice stands on par with her own discipline regarding celibacy. **

crisismagazine.com/october2006/ryland.htm
The Universal Church values the disciplines of the East as much as she does the West.
 
The Universal Church values the disciplines of the East as much as she does the West.
And in the East, a married man may be a priest, but NEVER a bishop as long as he still has a wife. . . celibacy is the higher call. . .
 
. . . celibacy is the higher call. . .
Thank you and that’s what I’ve been stating all along. However the start of this thread was wrong, I was merely providing the facts for why the West is where it’s at. The west upheld that when a married man was ordained, he ceased to be a husband. It is a difference in interpretation on what the apostolic discipline is. The Latin Rite did not implement manditory celibacy because of the reasons why this thread was started. It is because the west took on the custom of having its married priests practice abstinence of which tradition states it goes back to the apostolic age. (Abstinence of clergy stems back to the Apostolic times this is not some discipline that poped up in the Middle Ages because of economics.) When that proved to be too difficult, then celibacy was made manditory. Meaning single men putting of marriage all together.
 
There is no “agree to disagree” on this point.
If the West agreed on this point, then it would have followed what the East did and said it is OK for deacons and priests to keep having marital relations after ordination. But that is not what the west did, the west continued to emphasize that married clergy are required to cease to have marital relations and when it saw that its married priests could not keep their vows, they abondoned married priests all together.
 
But the passage most confidently appealed to is one of St. Epiphanius where the holy doctor first of all speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles (Haer., xlviii, 9), and then in a later passage seems to describe this rule or canon in some detail. “Holy Church”, he says, "respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children.
If we were to follow these Canons, as many of the “traditionalists” would have us. Then that means, that the whole restoration of the “Permanent” Deaconate would only include celebate men and that the Office of Subdeacon (who had a role in the Extraordinary Form) which is like that of the “altar-boy” would also have to be celebate.

The truth of the matter is that there were many married priests back in the "good ol’ days. St. Aelred’s dad was a priest.

As far as the argument of not spending time with one’s family. Surgeons routinely work over 70 hours per week post residency. Physicians spend over 80 hours per week in residency for 4+ years and surgeons spend as much as 90+ hours per week in residency for 5+ years. If we were going to be logical about this, we would have to conclude that physicians and surgeons should have to be celebate as well so they aren’t being pulled from both sides- from vocation and family. In fact, the local GP in my former town actually was cutting patients so as to spend more time with his family.

I’m not positing that married priests will “solve” the “vocations crisis,” only trying to clear up some misconceptions.

In fact, I believe we have a laity crisis. If our families had 5+ children again, the likelihood of having a son to enter the seminary becomes more and more probable. The fact is that only 10% of Catholics are living like good Catholics. We get the “vocations crisis” that we deserve.
 
After careful consideration of the issue I have come to the conclusion that the church has to allow priests to marry.
The Church doesn’t have to do anything, and certainly not because you pronounce it.
The church only implemented the celebacy rule because it didn’t want to lose land and money to priest’s offspring who didn’t become priests and who they couldn’t control.
Silly urban legends die hard I see.
When is the church going to wake up and see that in order to survive it has to modernise and allow priests to marry???
The Church survives by the grace and protection of Christ alone.
 
If we were to follow these Canons, as many of the “traditionalists” would have us. Then that means, that the whole restoration of the “Permanent” Deaconate would only include celebate men and that the Office of Subdeacon (who had a role in the Extraordinary Form) which is like that of the “altar-boy” would also have to be celebate.

The truth of the matter is that there were many married priests back in the "good ol’ days. St. Aelred’s dad was a priest.

As far as the argument of not spending time with one’s family. Surgeons routinely work over 70 hours per week post residency. Physicians spend over 80 hours per week in residency for 4+ years and surgeons spend as much as 90+ hours per week in residency for 5+ years. If we were going to be logical about this, we would have to conclude that physicians and surgeons should have to be celebate as well so they aren’t being pulled from both sides- from vocation and family. In fact, the local GP in my former town actually was cutting patients so as to spend more time with his family.

I’m not positing that married priests will “solve” the “vocations crisis,” only trying to clear up some misconceptions.

In fact, I believe we have a laity crisis. If our families had 5+ children again, the likelihood of having a son to enter the seminary becomes more and more probable. The fact is that only 10% of Catholics are living like good Catholics. We get the “vocations crisis” that we deserve.
This thread is from 2006…
 
What do you mean by modernizing?

As Catholics, we follow Bible and Sacred Traditions. We don’t change its way just because of something called “modern”.

What does a married priest do when He gets home?
  • he hangs around with his wife and kids and thinks about how to please them.
What does an un-married priest do when he gets home?
  • he hangs around with Jesus and his entire community which is his family and think about how to please God and save souls.
It is time for us to wake up and pray more for vocations.
👍 AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

And to add…Although this is not an infallible teaching i.e. it can be changed. I believe that it is how it is because the Holy Spirit works through our Pope and Bishops in Rome to make these rules as they are.

And whoa to us if we ever “modernize” so that we “fit in” with the traditions of this world. Our home (hopefully) is in heaven. And I would like to “fit in” with the traditions of Gods Kingdom.
“Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”

Also, in the statement “wake up and see that in order to survive it has to modernize”…in order to survive??? We already know the end of the story. Christ won! “THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.”

Praise be to God!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top