F
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Lurkers: the above is incorrect.
If your parish priest is married, you need not ask him prior to receiving the Eucharist from him if he is engaging in marital relations with his wife.
Suffice it to know that if the Bishop has given him faculties, then he is absolutely fine to administer the sacraments.
It is, indeed, absolutely NOT ESSENTIAL to be celibate to administer the sacraments.
F
friardchips
Guest
WHAT?!
F
friardchips
Guest
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PY.HTM
Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
CANON LAW
Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
CANON LAW
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I find it interesting that Wikipedia only lists five married popes (including Peter) and names them. It also carefully distinguishes these five as having been married before being elected pope. It also names a few who were provably sexually active before (3) and after holding office (4) – which means they weren’t married or they would have been listed with the first five. It further lists those (9) who were alleged to have been or accused of having been sexually active while in office. That makes a grand total of 21 with only five (not 39) married popes, all of those married before holding office.
Granted, Wikipedia is not the end of the discussion, but it, at least, attempts to provide some disputable facts rather than merely make claims.
F
friardchips
Guest
You did actually…
D) tell me to find different sources when I posed articles from Wiki, suggesting that I post articles which are not from those ‘outside’ the Church, and so, by you using Wiki too, you are stating that I, too, provided disputable facts?
P
PRmerger
Guest
So how do you explain the fact that there are married priests in the Latin rite of the CC?
F
friardchips
Guest
The position of a Deacon is different to that of a priest. Can a Deacon hear confessions - of course not. Can he say Mass - of course not.
And if we were to examine the conditions for which a married priest could administer the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church we would find that they were remaining celibate.
I was baptised a Roman Catholic, and by that my (baby) acknowledgement was that I adhering to all the Church is - dogmas, Pope, doctrines and Canon Law. Some of the things I am reading tend to be used as ways of allowing anything goes. I understand that the ‘Roman’ part was added later but this is all just pointing out my initial reason for using 'Roman before the term ‘Catholic’.
No one bothers to read links on this thread and if they had done they would have similarly learnt something today about why it is that the term Roman is expressed (even though initially brought in by Anglicans) at all.
If you look at the lives of the saints then you will see no priest married. That is good enough for me. And they came under the RCC. That originally was just the CC.
PR, if there are priests who are married then who knows why - special dispensation maybe. But if we analysed why, we would probably discover that these priests were not living as a normal married husband and wife would live.
And if we were to examine the conditions for which a married priest could administer the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church we would find that they were remaining celibate.
I was baptised a Roman Catholic, and by that my (baby) acknowledgement was that I adhering to all the Church is - dogmas, Pope, doctrines and Canon Law. Some of the things I am reading tend to be used as ways of allowing anything goes. I understand that the ‘Roman’ part was added later but this is all just pointing out my initial reason for using 'Roman before the term ‘Catholic’.
No one bothers to read links on this thread and if they had done they would have similarly learnt something today about why it is that the term Roman is expressed (even though initially brought in by Anglicans) at all.
If you look at the lives of the saints then you will see no priest married. That is good enough for me. And they came under the RCC. That originally was just the CC.
PR, if there are priests who are married then who knows why - special dispensation maybe. But if we analysed why, we would probably discover that these priests were not living as a normal married husband and wife would live.
F
friardchips
Guest
Ask any priest as they have to study Canon Law!
F
friardchips
Guest
Yes. The Pope has expressed as such and over this particular matter.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.
So celibacy is NOT essential.
If exceptions are made, that means, by definition, it’s NOT…essential.
So celibacy is NOT essential.
If exceptions are made, that means, by definition, it’s NOT…essential.
F
friardchips
Guest
This is not proven because we don’t know the conditions for when Popes have, and when they can, provide a dispensation. All we can assert, is that it is not the norm, and there will be reasons for that too (see Canon Law 277 for starters):
‘Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.’
Seems pretty clear.
F
friardchips
Guest
Please provide examples of such priests. Yes, I meant chaste when in marriage not celibate.
So far, you are providing the cases of those with special dispensations and not cases of what is considered normal, and this is misleading. Unless you can provide examples then this post has no factual content included.
So far, you are providing the cases of those with special dispensations and not cases of what is considered normal, and this is misleading. Unless you can provide examples then this post has no factual content included.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Such priests? Who are married in the Roman rite?
Are we back here again?
I thought you already acknowledged that there married priests in the Latin rite.
Then you are correct.
Men who are married–all men who are married, be they priest or layman–must be chaste when in marriage.
You said that it is ESSENTIAL to be celibate in order to confect the sacraments.
This is INCORRECT.
It may be the norm.
But it is NOT essential.
Here’s a parallel.
You say: it is ESSENTIAL that strep throat be treated with PCN VK.
I say, it’s not ESSENTIAL, because we can treat it with Keflex and Amoxil.
Then you change it to say, well, it’s the NORM to treat strep throat with PCN VK.
And THEN I would say: yes, you are correct here.
But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s ESSENTIAL.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You mean celibate.
All men (and women) are called to be chaste, which is nothing more (and nothing less) than using one’s sexual faculties in the way that they were meant to be used.
So married couples are chaste when they engage in the marital embrace in the way God intended.
They are chaste. But not celibate.
All men (and women) are called to be chaste, which is nothing more (and nothing less) than using one’s sexual faculties in the way that they were meant to be used.
So married couples are chaste when they engage in the marital embrace in the way God intended.
They are chaste. But not celibate.
F
friardchips
Guest
Sorry for quoting from WIki but seems decent info:
'Rite[edit]
Care must be taken to distinguish different meanings of the word rite. Apart from its reference to the liturgical patrimony of a particular Church, the word has been and is still sometimes, even if rarely, officially used of the particular Church itself. Thus, the term Latin rite can refer either to the Latin Church or to one or more of the Latin liturgical rites, which include the majority Roman Rite, but also the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, and others.
In the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO),[11][12] the terms autonomous Church and rite are thus defined:
A group of Christian faithful linked in accordance with the law by a hierarchy and expressly or tacitly recognized by the supreme authority of the Church as autonomous is in this Code called an autonomous Church (canon 27).[13]
A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each autonomous [sui iuris] Church.
The rites treated in CCEO, unless otherwise stated, are those that arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions" (canon 28)[14] (not just a liturgical heritage, but also a theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage characteristic of peoples’ culture and the circumstances of their history).
When speaking of Eastern Catholic Churches, the Latin Church’s 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC) uses the terms “ritual Church” or “ritual Church sui iuris” (canons 111 and 112), and also speaks of “a subject of an Eastern rite” (canon 1015 §2), “Ordinaries of another rite” (canon 450 §1), “the faithful of a specific rite” (canon 476), etc. The Second Vatican Council spoke of Eastern Catholic Churches as “particular Churches or rites”.[5](n. 2)
In 1999, the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated: “We have been accustomed to speaking of the Latin (Roman or Western) Rite or the Eastern Rites to designate these different Churches. However, the Church’s contemporary legislation as contained in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes it clear that we ought to speak, not of rites, but of Churches. Canon 112 of the Code of Canon Law uses the phrase ‘autonomous ritual Churches’ to designate the various Churches.”[15] And a writer in a periodical of January 2006 declared: "The Eastern Churches are still mistakenly called ‘Eastern-rite’ Churches, a reference to their various liturgical histories. They are most properly called Eastern Churches, or Eastern Catholic Churches."[1] However, the term “rite” continues to be used. The 1983 CIC forbids a Latin bishop to ordain, without permission of the Holy See, a subject of his who is “of an Eastern rite” (not “who uses an Eastern rite”, the faculty for which is sometimes granted to Latin clergy).[16]
So I am part of the Universal Catholic Church but baptised a Roman Catholic Church, not ‘Rite’, because this can be confused.
Personally, I proclaim I am a universal Catholic whilst remaining of a particular Church because of certain discrepencies in those details listed in this citation I have posted, and one being the need for celibate - unmarried - and most definitely chaste, priests.
'Rite[edit]
Care must be taken to distinguish different meanings of the word rite. Apart from its reference to the liturgical patrimony of a particular Church, the word has been and is still sometimes, even if rarely, officially used of the particular Church itself. Thus, the term Latin rite can refer either to the Latin Church or to one or more of the Latin liturgical rites, which include the majority Roman Rite, but also the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, and others.
In the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO),[11][12] the terms autonomous Church and rite are thus defined:
A group of Christian faithful linked in accordance with the law by a hierarchy and expressly or tacitly recognized by the supreme authority of the Church as autonomous is in this Code called an autonomous Church (canon 27).[13]
A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each autonomous [sui iuris] Church.
The rites treated in CCEO, unless otherwise stated, are those that arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions" (canon 28)[14] (not just a liturgical heritage, but also a theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage characteristic of peoples’ culture and the circumstances of their history).
When speaking of Eastern Catholic Churches, the Latin Church’s 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC) uses the terms “ritual Church” or “ritual Church sui iuris” (canons 111 and 112), and also speaks of “a subject of an Eastern rite” (canon 1015 §2), “Ordinaries of another rite” (canon 450 §1), “the faithful of a specific rite” (canon 476), etc. The Second Vatican Council spoke of Eastern Catholic Churches as “particular Churches or rites”.[5](n. 2)
In 1999, the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated: “We have been accustomed to speaking of the Latin (Roman or Western) Rite or the Eastern Rites to designate these different Churches. However, the Church’s contemporary legislation as contained in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes it clear that we ought to speak, not of rites, but of Churches. Canon 112 of the Code of Canon Law uses the phrase ‘autonomous ritual Churches’ to designate the various Churches.”[15] And a writer in a periodical of January 2006 declared: "The Eastern Churches are still mistakenly called ‘Eastern-rite’ Churches, a reference to their various liturgical histories. They are most properly called Eastern Churches, or Eastern Catholic Churches."[1] However, the term “rite” continues to be used. The 1983 CIC forbids a Latin bishop to ordain, without permission of the Holy See, a subject of his who is “of an Eastern rite” (not “who uses an Eastern rite”, the faculty for which is sometimes granted to Latin clergy).[16]
So I am part of the Universal Catholic Church but baptised a Roman Catholic Church, not ‘Rite’, because this can be confused.
Personally, I proclaim I am a universal Catholic whilst remaining of a particular Church because of certain discrepencies in those details listed in this citation I have posted, and one being the need for celibate - unmarried - and most definitely chaste, priests.
P
PRmerger
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
I confused the issue by using the wrong word. Oops!
Chaste more than celibate. But the perfect scenario is celibate.
That depends on the angle we are approaching this from. I understand your reasoning. I think chastity is essential. Celibacy really depends on whose point of view (not that the truth is relative) we are seeing this from because I see a holy sacrifice as one coming from such a person who is only married to our Creator. If a priest was married then surely there needs to be some kind of annulment. Because ultimately, it may not be deemed as essential, going by the reasoning in your argument, but this doesn’t mean that is isn’t essential when up for display in the light of truth.
We are in the dark a little here unless we have details of what constitutes suitable reason for dispensation. This might even bear weight on the original subject of the thread.
F
friardchips
Guest
At last.
I was beginning to have dizzy spells!
F
friardchips
Guest
My response is the same as to what I posted in last couple of paragraphs to PR.
The only exceptions are special dispensations and for ministers in the Ordinariate.
I see no proof of priests being given dispensations to carry on participating in physical relations with wives. So, still, your posts are conjecture until proven otherwise.
Hence, why I chose to post the differences of understanding between different ‘Churches’ in the Universal Catholic Church thus further pointing to my own baptismal promises of willingness to adhere to the Roman/Latin (call it what you will).
The only exceptions are special dispensations and for ministers in the Ordinariate.
I see no proof of priests being given dispensations to carry on participating in physical relations with wives. So, still, your posts are conjecture until proven otherwise.
- Status