why can't priests marry?

[pablope]

I find this statement to be a little problematic. It is not necessary to be celibate to act “in persona Christi”. Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Churches have a tradition of married priests-they act “in persona Christi” no less than do celibate priests. The fruitfulness of their ministry is acknowledged in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I would not question their commitment to Christ and to the Church because they are married.

Yes, you are right. The premise of the poster was for the Latin rite priests, so my response was regarding the celibacy requirement for the Latin rites.

 

[RyanBlack]

Jesus is said to be married to the church, and that the church is the bride of Christ. Thus if a priest acts in persona Christi, he is also married to the church. He cannot be married to the church, and to a woman as well. This is how it is seen in the Roman Rite at least.

I disagree. By that reasoning, only celibate priests act in persona christ. Would you assert that priests of the Eastern Churches do not act in personal christ?

Furthermore, what of the priests in the Roman Church who actually are married? Do they not act in persona christi?

Finally, to me, it seems that the argument that a priest cannot be married to the Church and to a woman sounds much more like a statement of doctrine, than a matter of discipline. The Roman Church’s practice of a celibate priesthood is a matter of Church discipline, not a matter or doctrine.

 

[Farsight001]

I fail to see where God commands priests not to marry but only an opinion which the church clings to…

Why does it have to be a command?

but my point is a priest can not get married and still maintain his position in the church

so? He took a vow of celibacy. To get married would be to break that vow, which I remind you, was his choice to make in the first place.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Here is a link to an article that explains rationale of celibacy in the priesthood…

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

Hopefully, this will answer any questions on why the Roman Catholic priesthood is celibate.

 

[achristiantoo]

I find this statement to be a little problematic. It is not necessary to be celibate to act “in persona Christi”. Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Churches have a tradition of married priests-they act “in persona Christi” no less than do celibate priests. The fruitfulness of their ministry is acknowledged in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I would not question their commitment to Christ and to the Church because they are married.

Amen

 

[achristiantoo]

Why does it have to be a command?

so? He took a vow of celibacy. To get married would be to break that vow, which I remind you, was his choice to make in the first place.

far sight I understand exactly what you are saying that It is his choice to commit to celibacy as a priest. I get that.

My point is…

Isn’t a man obligated to make a vow of celicacy before being ordained as a priest.?

Example…

If I wanted to be a priest in the catholic church anywhere in the world today, but did not want to make a vow of celibacy because I wanted to keep the option of marriage open in my future,
would I still be able to be ordained as a priest and possibly be a bishop or cardinal without taking the celibacy vow?

Thank you

 

[achristiantoo]

Why Celibacy?

Jesus was celibate, and His celibacy was a sign of His commitment to his bride…the Church.

And as the Cathoic priests stands “in persona Christi” and represents Christ here on earth…celibacy then is to be “like Christ”…to give their total commitment to the service of Christ and His Church.

As St. Paul said in 1 Cor 7, the celibate worries only of the Lord’s concerns. So, celibacy is a total commitment, a lifetime commitment to the Church, just as Christ is totally committed too.

Would you have anything less?

Commitment is a wonderful attribute for anyone to give.
I am from a penticostal church with a married pastor.

Talking with him, I can sense the committment he has towards the church and his family
I agree It would probably be less stressful for any man to have his responsibilities reduced.

Commitment is an area for any Pastor and God to work through.

After all, Catholic believe their first pope was Peter, who was married.

I can not find any weak areas in his commitmwnt to the church, cany you?

 

[achristiantoo]

I “fail to see” your issue with the priesthood remaining celibate. It is a discipline, not a dogma; as others and myself have already pointed out.

My issue is…look at my reply to farsight 2 posts back

 

[achristiantoo]

If the priests are good with it, and accept it, what is the problem? The church also requires priests to have certain degrees and schooling as a discipline. Do you have a problem with that?

My point again is as I replied to farsight a few posts back

Also, education today is a wonderful thing.

I believe there are a lot of intelligent people in this world who can not realize there dreams because of restrictions which are in place to have a college degree.

there is no degree which can measure a person’s heart

I personally know of someone wgho is a Regional Vice President of his company and does not have a degree. as a matter of fact I believe he was a HS dropout.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. There’s really no way for us to know this to be the case.

Sure there is, Celibacy practiced in the Catholic Church proves that this priestly discipline was sought after even upon those who converted as married men, but then both wife and husband took a vow of chastity, including widowers who aspired to the office of priesthood;

St. Jerome who soiled his hands with the ancient letters of the apostles and Hebrew books, brings this ancient practice of married priest to letter, when the multi-linguistic Monk states,

" The virgin Christ and virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least, when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity. letters, 48:21

What you present in the negative does not present the marriage chastity vow itself from a letter, but those who were handed down the practice put in letter form early on such as Tertullian, Jerome, St. Gregory the Great, and many others who became priest while married took to the vow of chastity.

In any case you cannot prove that the married apostles did not take this married vow of chastity. What you look for proof from a writing, I call your attention to the practices of the ancient Catholic Church being practiced today unchanged.

Tertullian from the second century reveals, besides Peter all the other apostles were found not to be married;

“The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent” On Monogamy, Chap.8

Do the Eastern Orthodox priest practice this ancient discipline of chastity while being married as priests?

Peace be with you

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Good point…

There is no difference in the way both are goverened by the opinions and/or laws of man not by God’s command

Wait, so you think the protestant church leaders in the 19th century were denying God’s command by insisting on married men for the missions?

You think that they had no ‘right’ to make a pastoral decision over what they thought most appropriate?

You think that God’s ‘command’ is utterly inclusive?

Well, then, what think you of laws (state laws) that limit the age of marriage, or say that people within a certain ‘degree’ cannot marry? Those laws are not ‘God’s command’, are they - but I don’t believe that you would say that a state has ‘no right’ to establish a law that is not God’s command ‘as you understand it’.

So perhaps you are in a good old god fearing church and up come a 13 year old boy and girl who want to get married. By ‘God’s command’ there is no ‘law’ to say that they cannot … but by state law in your state, they cannot.

Does your pastor go ahead and marry the two? If not. . .why not, when it would not break "God’s command’. . .what ‘right’ has he to ‘deny God’s command?’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My point again is as I replied to farsight a few posts back

Also, education today is a wonderful thing.

I believe there are a lot of intelligent people in this world who can not realize there dreams because of restrictions which are in place to have a college degree.

there is no degree which can measure a person’s heart

I personally know of someone wgho is a Regional Vice President of his company and does not have a degree. as a matter of fact I believe he was a HS dropout.

It took Jesus 3 years to teach His apostles, the early Catholic Church taught catechumens for 3 years before being baptized, while many refused baptism until their deathbed.

In Christianity it is a given that God calls sinners to repentance, Jesus called Peter a fisherman, Jesus himself was a carpenter and saved the many.

Peter called forth the first council to appoint Judas replacement, and these to select from had to meet their apostolic requirement in order to walk the walk and talk the talk.

Thus instruction to the priesthood is vital to this ministry of reconciliation. God can call anyone, but from His calling, God trained 12 men for 3 years to baptize all Nations to Himself.

Peace be with you

 

[Farsight001]

far sight I understand exactly what you are saying that It is his choice to commit to celibacy as a priest. I get that.

My point is…

Isn’t a man obligated to make a vow of celicacy before being ordained as a priest.?

Example…

If I wanted to be a priest in the catholic church anywhere in the world today, but did not want to make a vow of celibacy because I wanted to keep the option of marriage open in my future,
would I still be able to be ordained as a priest and possibly be a bishop or cardinal without taking the celibacy vow?

Thank you

And? That is why he gets to choose. It is not forced on him.

You say you’re making a point. Obviously I’m not seeing it.

 

[firstmode]

1 Corinthians 9:5-6*(New Living Translation)

5 Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter[a] does? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have to work to support ourselves?

 

[RyanBlack]

Sure there is, Celibacy practiced in the Catholic Church proves that this priestly discipline was sought after even upon those who converted as married men, but then both wife and husband took a vow of chastity, including widowers who aspired to the office of priesthood;

St. Jerome who soiled his hands with the ancient letters of the apostles and Hebrew books, brings this ancient practice of married priest to letter, when the multi-linguistic Monk states,

" The virgin Christ and virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least, when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity. letters, 48:21

What you present in the negative does not present the marriage chastity vow itself from a letter, but those who were handed down the practice put in letter form early on such as Tertullian, Jerome, St. Gregory the Great, and many others who became priest while married took to the vow of chastity.

In any case you cannot prove that the married apostles did not take this married vow of chastity. What you look for proof from a writing, I call your attention to the practices of the ancient Catholic Church being practiced today unchanged.

Tertullian from the second century reveals, besides Peter all the other apostles were found not to be married;

“The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent” On Monogamy, Chap.8

Do the Eastern Orthodox priest practice this ancient discipline of chastity while being married as priests?

Peace be with you

Peace be with you also.

Of course I can’t proved that the married apostles did not take vows of chastity with the consent of their wives. For all I know, some of those apostles who were married, and we don’t know who they were beyond Peter, were widowed by the time they became followers of Christ. Of course, St. Paul does mention other apostles taking with them believing wives, so there was more than one married apostle, and clearly, while some might have been widowed during the earthly ministry of Christ, clearly, they were not all widowed, as St. Paul’s writings make clear.

I would add that a couple of writing from St. Jerome and Tertullian do not prove universal practice. Also, history clearly shows that your claim of unchanged practice of celibacy in the West is false. Priestly celibacy was not universally enforced in the West until about the 11th century, and that was done in response to problems of Church property passing to the children of married priests.

And, no, Eastern Orthodox priests who are married do not practice celibacy except on days prior to and days of the celebrations of the Divine Liturgy. By the way, this is also the case with Eastern Catholic priests who are married. This is a practice that is acknowledged as legitimate and honored by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Finally, if you wish to honor and defend the Western Catholic practice of priestly celibacy, by all means, do so. I suggest that you do so using the actual arguments that come from the Vatican, as opposed to assertions about the Apostolic Era that are impossible to prove, and overlooking the well-known fact that there were married priests in the West who were not celibate for several centuries prior to the establishment of priestly celibacy as the norm.

 

[thomasf]

I find this statement to be a little problematic. It is not necessary to be celibate to act “in persona Christi”. Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Churches have a tradition of married priests-they act “in persona Christi” no less than do celibate priests. The fruitfulness of their ministry is acknowledged in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I would not question their commitment to Christ and to the Church because they are married.

I guessed you missed the part about “that’s how the Roman Rite church sees it”. It’s a requirement for the roman/latin rite, and that is part of the reasoning. As I wrote earlier, other rites have their own discipline, and nobody is saying the married priests of the other rites aren’t as good or as effective, whatever. But under the roman/latin rite, that’s the way it’s done.

I’m kinda puzzled why people who are either not part of the church, or under a different rite, really have a problem with the disciplines of the roman/latin rite churches. Nobody is twisting anyone’s arms to become priests or forcing people at gunpoint.

far sight I understand exactly what you are saying that It is his choice to commit to celibacy as a priest. I get that.

My point is…

Isn’t a man obligated to make a vow of celibacy before being ordained as a priest.?

Example…

If I wanted to be a priest in the catholic church anywhere in the world today, but did not want to make a vow of celibacy because I wanted to keep the option of marriage open in my future,
would I still be able to be ordained as a priest and possibly be a bishop or cardinal without taking the celibacy vow?

Thank you

Why would you want to become a latin/roman rite priest if you wanted to get married? As has been explained to you, it’s a general requirement that priests remain celibate and unmarried. If you can’t match that requirement, you don’t get to become a priest.

 

[thomasf]

My point again is as I replied to farsight a few posts back

Also, education today is a wonderful thing.

I believe there are a lot of intelligent people in this world who can not realize there dreams because of restrictions which are in place to have a college degree.

there is no degree which can measure a person’s heart

I personally know of someone wgho is a Regional Vice President of his company and does not have a degree. as a matter of fact I believe he was a HS dropout.

Wonderful. Again, it’s a requirement of becoming a priest. Just like med school/law school requires a bachelor’s degree. Just as I want a fully educated doctor working on me, the church wants educated men for priests.

 

[RyanBlack]

I guessed you missed the part about “that’s how the Roman Rite church sees it”. It’s a requirement for the roman/latin rite, and that is part of the reasoning. As I wrote earlier, other rites have their own discipline, and nobody is saying the married priests of the other rites aren’t as good or as effective, whatever. But under the roman/latin rite, that’s the way it’s done.

I’m kinda puzzled why people who are either not part of the church, or under a different rite, really have a problem with the disciplines of the roman/latin rite churches. Nobody is twisting anyone’s arms to become priests or forcing people at gunpoint.

Actually, no, I didn’t miss the part about “that’s how the Roman Rite Church sees it.” When you start talking about the priest acting in persona christi within the context of the liturgy, that is a matter of the theology or doctrine of the priesthood, not a matter of discipline concerning the priesthood. So, if you say that in order for a priest to act in persona christi, he must be celibate, as Christ was celibate, that sort of doctrinal argument transcends rites and disciplines. So, to my way of thinking, to make that argument is problematic, even from the perspective of the Roman Church, since the Roman Church, in her own Catechism of the Catholic Church, acknowledeges both the validity and fruitfulness of the ministry of married, non-celibate priests in the Eastern Churches. If being married means a man cannot act in persona christi, then he can’t, regardless of whether he is Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic. Really, to my way of thinking, these sort of arguments amount to attempting to provide theological explanations for a practice that arose in response to practical reasons (the passing of Church property from priests to their heirs, who did not always themselves become priests, so the Church was losing property). The celibacy of Roman priests is a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. BTW, I don’t have a problem with the disciplines of the Roman Church, but I do have a problem with Roman Catholics making flawed claims about the theology of the priesthood in order to defend those disciplines, because theological/doctrinal teachings about the priesthood transcend rites.

 

[thomasf]

Actually, no, I didn’t miss the part about “that’s how the Roman Rite Church sees it.” When you start talking about the priest acting in persona christi within the context of the liturgy, that is a matter of the theology or doctrine of the priesthood, not a matter of discipline concerning the priesthood. So, if you say that in order for a priest to act in persona christi, he must be celibate, as Christ was celibate, that sort of doctrinal argument transcends rites and disciplines. So, to my way of thinking, to make that argument is problematic, even from the perspective of the Roman Church, since the Roman Church, in her own Catechism of the Catholic Church, acknowledeges both the validity and fruitfulness of the ministry of married, non-celibate priests in the Eastern Churches. If being married means a man cannot act in persona christi, then he can’t, regardless of whether he is Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic. Really, to my way of thinking, these sort of arguments amount to attempting to provide theological explanations for a practice that arose in response to practical reasons (the passing of Church property from priests to their heirs, who did not always themselves become priests, so the Church was losing property). The celibacy of Roman priests is a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. BTW, I don’t have a problem with the disciplines of the Roman Church, but I do have a problem with Roman Catholics making flawed claims about the theology of the priesthood in order to defend those disciplines, because theological/doctrinal teachings about the priesthood transcend rites.

No, you’re making an assumption that I said that priests MUST be celibate to act in persona christi. What I wrote was that the church feels that since the bride of Christ is the church, that a priest should be celibate so that his only bride is the church as Jesus’ bride is the church. It’s one of the reasons behind the discipline of celibacy. I did not write a priest MUST be celibate to act in persona christi. That’s what you thought I wrote.

Obviously, other rites don’t see it that way. They have their own disciplines and requirements for priesthood.

 

[RyanBlack]

No, you’re making an assumption that I said that priests MUST be celibate to act in persona christi. What I wrote was that the church feels that since the bride of Christ is the church, that a priest should be celibate so that his only bride is the church as Jesus’ bride is the church. It’s one of the reasons behind the discipline of celibacy. I did not write a priest MUST be celibate to act in persona christi. That’s what you thought I wrote.

Whether you say “must be celibate” or not, I still reject your particular argument for the celibacy of priests in the Roman Rite, because invariably, that particular argument leads to Roman Catholics (who vastly outnumber us and have a history of attempting- oftensuccessfully-to suppress our traditions) viewing our priesthood as inferior to their own. The celibate priesthood is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, period.