why can't priests marry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter achristiantoo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Well, I think it would have been better if we’ve adopted the way the East spreads the faith, allowing each new locale to adopt their own customs and traditions based on their own culture.
Click to expand...
The problem is how easily “customs and traditions” morph into “Dogmatic Traditions” that are difficult or impossible to change. Like this one. I’d go join an Eastern Rite Church in a heartbeat just for the theology of hell being impermanent, but someone would have to replace my wardrobe for me because I’m not allowed in because of the clothes I wear.

Too much leaven all around.
 
praxising said:
You’ve never heard of a Church that demands certain modes of dress to attend Mass?
Click to expand...
Those sound like sedevacantists, not Eastern Churches. I have never come across an Eastern Church that demands a dress code. Perhaps unless you are going to a monastery.
 
praxising said:
You’ve never heard of a Church that demands certain modes of dress to attend Mass?
Click to expand...
Can you give us an example?

Like, how would you normally dress for worship versus how you would be expected to dress? … and how did you learn about this, roughly what was said or written.

I am not seeing the complaint clearly.
 
Hesychios said:
What in the world are you talking about? :confused:
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Oh thank-you Hesychios, You just made my day. This is what I say in my mind at least once a week when I get on here and hear some off the wall thing’s of what we do.

I thought it was just me, but I can see we do think alike at times.😃
 
Hello.

Yes, Peter was married. So were most of the apostles and disciples. What you are forgetting is that Jesus called them when they were already married, and that He called them to:
Luke 14:25-27
*
Many people were traveling with Jesus. Jesus said to the people, “If a person comes to me, but will not leave his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters, then that person cannot be my follower. A person must love me more than he loves anything–even his own life! If a person will not carry the cross (suffering) that is given to him when he follows me, then that person cannot be my follower.” (ERV)*

Peter, himself, also said: “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” (Matthew 19:27, KJV)

Jesus, time and time again, told the apostles that in order to follow him, they must leave behind everything. The apostles did just that; they left their families, homes, jobs, etc. Almost all of them did other things before they knew Jesus and were His follower exclusively: they were fishermen, tax collectors, physicians, scribes, etc. Most were also fathers and husbands. But Jesus was adamant that in order to be His follower, they had to leave everything and follow Him, and be ready to do that at a moment’s notice.

Of course, Biblical scholars and different denominations of Christianity interpret that differently, which is why some denominations’ clergy are allowed to marry and others are not. Catholic priests, nuns, and consecrated individuals are making the choice to be “married to the Church” and to live their lives completely immersed in Christ and His Church, with no distractions. Anyone who is married or is a parent knows that their spouse or their child rightly will take up a good deal of their time or attention. There is nothing wrong with the married vocation in life. The Catholic Church sees it as a Sacrament, in fact! We just view Vocations/Holy Orders and Marriage as two separate ways of life that really can’t be mixed; it would rather be like trying to serve two masters. How could someone, really, give their life 100% to the Church when they are trying to raise a family and/or support a spouse mentally, emotionally, physically, etc? Our religious also take a vow of celibacy, that they give this great gift of sexuality to God. It doesn’t mean that married people are “lesser than”, just different.

For those in the Catholic Church who feel a call to serve the Church in a more dedicated way than a layperson, but who wish to remain or to be married, there is the service of being a Deacon. Deacons can be married and serve a very important place in the Church.

I hope this answered your question, at least to some degree.

God Bless.
 
Is “Orthodox Divine Liturgies” what I’d call “go to Mass?” If so, then, what particular dress is required of them? Or, do you know?
 
it will become a hot topic over the next decade with 60 being the average age of a priest in Australia & i can only guess this mirrored in many western countries.
this is possibly connected with the recent focus on recruiting Deacons who may well be married.
 
veilofveronica said:
Hello.

Yes, Peter was married. So were most of the apostles and disciples. What you are forgetting is that Jesus called them when they were already married, and that He called them to:
Luke 14:25-27
*
Many people were traveling with Jesus. Jesus said to the people, “If a person comes to me, but will not leave his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters, then that person cannot be my follower. A person must love me more than he loves anything–even his own life! If a person will not carry the cross (suffering) that is given to him when he follows me, then that person cannot be my follower.” (ERV)*

Peter, himself, also said: “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” (Matthew 19:27, KJV)

Jesus, time and time again, told the apostles that in order to follow him, they must leave behind everything. The apostles did just that; they left their families, homes, jobs, etc. Almost all of them did other things before they knew Jesus and were His follower exclusively: they were fishermen, tax collectors, physicians, scribes, etc. Most were also fathers and husbands. But Jesus was adamant that in order to be His follower, they had to leave everything and follow Him, and be ready to do that at a moment’s notice.

Of course, Biblical scholars and different denominations of Christianity interpret that differently, which is why some denominations’ clergy are allowed to marry and others are not. Catholic priests, nuns, and consecrated individuals are making the choice to be “married to the Church” and to live their lives completely immersed in Christ and His Church, with no distractions. Anyone who is married or is a parent knows that their spouse or their child rightly will take up a good deal of their time or attention. There is nothing wrong with the married vocation in life. The Catholic Church sees it as a Sacrament, in fact! We just view Vocations/Holy Orders and Marriage as two separate ways of life that really can’t be mixed; it would rather be like trying to serve two masters. How could someone, really, give their life 100% to the Church when they are trying to raise a family and/or support a spouse mentally, emotionally, physically, etc? Our religious also take a vow of celibacy, that they give this great gift of sexuality to God. It doesn’t mean that married people are “lesser than”, just different.

For those in the Catholic Church who feel a call to serve the Church in a more dedicated way than a layperson, but who wish to remain or to be married, there is the service of being a Deacon. Deacons can be married and serve a very important place in the Church.

I hope this answered your question, at least to some degree.

God Bless.
Click to expand...
Tradition has it that Peter’s wife traveled along with them. So he did not leave her in the literal sense of what Jesus said. Oftentimes Jesus spoke about attachment, as to riches, rather than literal abandonment of family and personal wealth. Think of Joseph of Arimathea, who’s wealthy enough to have a new, unused tomb. He was a disciple and yet if he followed the literal sense of giving away all possessions, he shouldn’t have owned a tomb at the time of Jesus’ death.
 
pat_helensburgh said:
it will become a hot topic over the next decade with 60 being the average age of a priest in Australia & i can only guess this mirrored in many western countries.
this is possibly connected with the recent focus on recruiting Deacons who may well be married.
Click to expand...
Well, in the Western countries this is the case. But many other countries have jampacked seminaries and are producing lots of priests. I mean here in Vancouver we already have a lot of Chinese priests. It maybe that in 20-30 years, most of our priests aren’t white Americans or Canadians, but Asians or Africans or Latinos.
 
Hello Praxising,
This is off topic for this thread but I think it bears addressing…
praxising said:
The one I included in the post you are responding to here, and will repeat now for the third time:
You’ve never heard of a Church that demands certain modes of dress to attend Mass?
Click to expand...
You originally said (I am not addressing your theological point) … " The problem is how easily “customs and traditions” morph into “Dogmatic Traditions” that are difficult or impossible to change. Like this one. I’d go join an Eastern Rite Church in a heartbeat … but someone would have to replace my wardrobe for me because I’m not allowed in because of the clothes I wear. "

This says that there is a difference in dogmatic tradition between your church and the eastern churches over the matter of dress. The only thing I am aware of as a difference in tradition has to do with clerical garb, not with a layperson’s apparel. The layperson’s apparel will be whatever is common to the local population, which is sometimes different from country to country.

Then, without giving any further explanation you switch the complaint to *modes of dress, *which is (to my mind) a different topic altogether. It is modes of dress which I will comment on.

One might have different types of casual wear in different parts of the world as a matter of local custom. But the mode of dress in church should be respectful of fact that it is a house of God, and not some gin mill by the foundry. One should always wear the nicest possible respectful clothes, in good repair if possible. This is the same approach one should take with one’s inner spiritual condition.

I would have thought that this was a common attitude among Christians of every background and creed, that you imply something else surprises me.

If a person doesn’t have and cannot afford many different clothes he/she can make some attempt to look neat and modest in the temple and will always be welcome, but if a person shows up in sexually alluring apparel or disrespectful illustrations or comments printed on their shirts they should not expect to be allowed inside. The priest or deacon should qyuietly give them instruction on why they are not appropriately dressed and send them out for a refit. If their pride is hurt they have more problems they need to address before approaching an altar of God.

If some churches do not do this it is a shame IMO. All this is not the same as demanding the members wear hoods and gowns or special emblems or any such thing. The dress is always to be as dignified as possible in the temple, with respect to the native culture. I have found that most devout people will dress up if they can, to the local norms, because they want to.

For instance, when I atternded the Roman Catholic church a clean sport shirt and neat pants was common in a summer Sunday Mass and that is what I wore most of the time. When I attended a Ruthenian Catholic parish it was very similar, but by percentage more men wore suits with neckties, so I did wear my suit more often. I recall thinking about it at the time, I didn’t mind, I was happy to be there with my friends worshiping God.

When I became Orthodox the parish was also Ruthenian by background, but almost all the men wore suits with neckties most of the time (which really got me thinking). So I wore my suit even more often. I was conforming, yes, to the local norm set by my peers but not once did the church announce that we had prescribed dress. I was never told I had to wear a suit, and some days I just didn’t want to. We were always expected to dress respectfully inside the temple, which I (in my own fallible judgment) take to mean bicycle pants and speedos are not appropriate. Perhaps most other people took it the same way because I never saw anyone wear junk in an eastern parish church.

If you know of any church that allows swimwear in the temple, let me know, I might want to visit. 😃
 
Just a thing to ponder.

It was mentioned earlier (I haven’t gone through the whole thread)
Jesus entered the house of Peter, and saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.
Click to expand...
But please note, there is no mention of Peter’s wife nor do we find in scripture anywhere about her or her name or if Peter had any children. Also it says in Matthew that the mother in law started waiting on them. Why didn’t Peter’s wife wait on them since it would have been her duty and it was left to the mother in law? Peter’s wife would not have been very nice to let her mother care for Peter? Was Peter’s wife crippled and not able to care for them?

Is it possible that Peter was widowed and thus was able to become our first Pope? Did his wife travel with him and Paul?

I’m sure any good married person who’s mother-in-law live with them, or not necessarily living with them, if their spouse dies, will they stop referring to their mother-in-law as mother-in-law?.. I don’t think so…And I think this presents a problem to those that say they believe ONLY what is in scripture and that it must be specific.

Those priest’s in the CC that are married like the Anglican men that have been ordained into the priesthood, if their wife die, the priest cannot remarry. And I believe this holds true also within the Orthodox Church (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Likewise a deacon. If the man is ordained a deacon and is single, he cannot marry. If the man is married and ordained a deacon and his wife passes, he remains unmarried.
 
=achristiantoo;7792074]Hi all,
Click to expand...
from the catholic bible,
Click to expand...
Matthew
Chapter 8:14,
Click to expand...
we see that Peter was married,
Click to expand...
Can anyone explain to me why the Catholic Church does not allow their priests to be married even though Peter was married?
Click to expand...
Thank you in advance
Click to expand...
Greetings friend,

What your asking about is a Church Practice, thus is could; but very likely not be changed for the following reasons:

Seminarians for the Catholic Priesthood know well in advance the obligsations and reasons for these obligations that they FREELY agree too, long before Ordination. So they are sought but not forced into the obligation.

The decision by the Church is based on more than 1,000 YEARS of expereice with cebelacy. And the postion is based on the folowing Biblical evidence:

**Matt.6: [24] **“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Luke.16: [13] No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

Anyone who is married knows factually that one WORK does and is a cause of much friction and debate in marrriage. Especially those in some sort of management, supervisory positions.

St. Paul has this to say:

1st. Cor. 1Cor.7 “[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. [11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife. [20]** Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. **4.[24] So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God. [26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.”

PRUDENCE is a Virtue: and it’s merits are herein applived and well servered. Parsih priest almost as a rule work WELL-OVER 40 hours a week. Many more tha 60 or even 80. Because that is what the “job” requires.

So it’s a matter of Prudent priorities, FREELY accepted.

Hope this answers your querry?

God bless,
Pat
 
I know the RC Church today do that for their married clergy.
Click to expand...
to which Praxing replied
Wait. Seriously? You mean those Episcopalian Priests who laterally transfer in are expected to stop having conjugal relations?
Click to expand...
Those married Episcopalian men that are ordained Catholic priest, are NOT required to abandon their husbandly duty. The priest at OLA was married with four children and later after he was ordained a Catholic priest he and his wife had their fifth child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top