M
Mist
Guest
Why can’t Catholic Priests marry but Orthodox ones can?
Shouldn’t they have someone throughout their life on Earth?
Thank you
Shouldn’t they have someone throughout their life on Earth?
Thank you
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
manualman
Guest
Short answer: because they made a promise not to.
The priesthood is not a career. Want to really understand? Go read every Bible book by St. Paul. Back now? That’s what the priesthood is meant to be. A total giving of self to Christ. A funny thing happens when you do that. You get back more than you gave. Does it look like St. Paul had any regrets? Did he miss out on many priceless things not being a father and husband? Sure. But that sacrifice is what enabled him to go out and change the world for Christ. He found it well worth the price. Priests today are called to do the same.
I’ll let the Orthodox answer for their own system, but be aware that they have two different “tracks” for priests (they likley have a more precise word than that). The married variety is never made into bishops / patriarchs. Basically for the same reasons.
The priesthood is not a career. Want to really understand? Go read every Bible book by St. Paul. Back now? That’s what the priesthood is meant to be. A total giving of self to Christ. A funny thing happens when you do that. You get back more than you gave. Does it look like St. Paul had any regrets? Did he miss out on many priceless things not being a father and husband? Sure. But that sacrifice is what enabled him to go out and change the world for Christ. He found it well worth the price. Priests today are called to do the same.
I’ll let the Orthodox answer for their own system, but be aware that they have two different “tracks” for priests (they likley have a more precise word than that). The married variety is never made into bishops / patriarchs. Basically for the same reasons.
M
Mist
Guest
Alright. That makes sense. Thank you.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Just to add to your short answer, secular priests promise not to, religious have vowed not to.Short answer: because they made a promise not to.
The priesthood is not a career. Want to really understand? Go read every Bible book by St. Paul. Back now? That’s what the priesthood is meant to be. A total giving of self to Christ. A funny thing happens when you do that. You get back more than you gave. Does it look like St. Paul had any regrets? Did he miss out on many priceless things not being a father and husband? Sure. But that sacrifice is what enabled him to go out and change the world for Christ. He found it well worth the price. Priests today are called to do the same.
There is a big distinction between these two but I don’t see the need to get into right now.
Not just the Orthodox but the Eastern Catholic Churches too,I’ll let the Orthodox answer for their own system, but be aware that they have two different “tracks” for priests (they likley have a more precise word than that). The married variety is never made into bishops / patriarchs. Basically for the same reasons.
But the issue is different, the man must be married before he is ordained. If he is ordained while single then he is celibate. If he is ordained while married and his wife dies he becomes a celibate. Just like the permanent diaconate.
M
Mist
Guest
A Secular priest? that seems odd!
A
Angel_Bradford
Guest
It’s the same thing as a diocesan priest.A Secular priest? that seems odd!
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
It’s a matter of discipline, not of doctrine like the male priesthood.
If the Pope said tomorrow that priests were free to marry, then they would be free to marry. There are already married Catholic priests in the persons of those ordained Anglican married priests who converted. They are unique, but it does show that it is not something that is forbidden.
If the Pope said tomorrow that priests were free to marry, then they would be free to marry. There are already married Catholic priests in the persons of those ordained Anglican married priests who converted. They are unique, but it does show that it is not something that is forbidden.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Again, if this was true but it would only be for the secular priesthood, those priests who are religious under vows still would be unable to marry as the vows are a matter of doctrine, not discipline.It’s a matter of discipline, not of doctrine like the male priesthood.
If the Pope said tomorrow that priests were free to marry, then they would be free to marry. There are already married Catholic priests in the persons of those ordained Anglican married priests who converted. They are unique, but it does show that it is not something that is forbidden.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
At one time they did. The Western Church gradually wanted a Clergy dedicated to a dedicated Spiritual formation as described in Scripture Matthew 19:12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven… This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shews. 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38.
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.
It is a vow.
Pax
There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven… This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shews. 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38.
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.
It is a vow.
Pax
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Secular priests take no vows, they make promises, only religious enter into vows.At one time they did. The Western Church gradually wanted a Clergy dedicated to a dedicated Spiritual formation as described in Scripture Matthew 19:12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven… This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shews. 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38.
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.
It is a vow.
Pax
M
malphono
Guest
As [thread=6366697]ByzCath[/thread] said earlier, a married man may be ordained to the priesthood, but a priest may not marry. That’s the way it is the East and Orient, (OC & CC), as well as in the West under the terms of the “Pastoral Provision” and Anglicanorum Coetibus. The discipline in the Roman Church is that it does not (currently) allow the former, and yes, that could change tomorrow. But, based on Tradition, an argument can be made that the latter is doctrinal. In that light, I don’t believe the Church could permit it, and I doubt She would even consider doing so.It’s a matter of discipline, not of doctrine like the male priesthood.
If the Pope said tomorrow that priests were free to marry, then they would be free to marry. There are already married Catholic priests in the persons of those ordained Anglican married priests who converted. They are unique, but it does show that it is not something that is forbidden.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<<Secular priests take no vows, they make promises, only religious enter into vows. >>>>
Rather than argue semantics - I’d rather submit this excerpt from a Sermon
" Church celibacy was instituted as a mandatory requirement for the priesthood, and then, after some centuries, it became a universal requirement in the Roman Rite "
Celibacy as a Means to Holiness in the Priesthood
The priest’s path to holiness very much involves his celibacy. His celibacy is a very good thing. He gives up the good of marriage, the human companionship of it, so that he can give himself more fully to God. Indeed, isn’t that what St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians? He says that the married person’s heart is divided (I Cor. 7:33). He doesn’t say that as a bad thing, of course. How could marriage be a bad thing when Christ ennobled it by making it a sacrament? But he is saying that the reality of it is that one cannot give himself as fully to God because one is trying to please his spouse as well as God. The virgin doesn’t have that difficulty. The virgin, by being unmarried “for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), can give himself or herself more fully to God. It is a means to an end, a very important means to an end.
It is true that in the early Church many priests and bishops were married. But the Church quickly discovered how exclusionary these two vocations were. Just from a practical viewpoint, how many of us would try to live two vocations at the same time? There is too much to do! And so, in certain localities in the early Church celibacy was instituted as a mandatory requirement for the priesthood, and then, after some centuries, it became a universal requirement in the Roman Rite — a very common sense, necessary requirement.
In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, married men are permitted to become priests, but these represent a very small percentage of the total number of Catholic priests in the world. As rich and as dignified a culture and history as the Eastern rites have, they are a small minority (less than 3% of the world Catholic population, according to pre-Vatican II National Catholic Almanac statistics). What is permitted to them, because of cultural and historical factors, is not thereby automatically for the betterment of the entire Church. Therefore, proponents of a married clergy in the Western rites of the Church (the Roman rite being the overwhelmingly predominant one) cannot find an argument here.
Even in the Eastern rites, a priest is forbidden to marry again if his wife were to die. Only before ordination is he allowed to be married; if his wife passes away, then no subsequent marriage whatsoever is permitted to him. For bishops, marriage is never permitted. We see then, even in the Eastern rites there is that understanding that these tend to exclude one another. They are very different paths of life and, practically speaking, it is near-impossible for one man to accomplish both of them.
Rather than argue semantics - I’d rather submit this excerpt from a Sermon
" Church celibacy was instituted as a mandatory requirement for the priesthood, and then, after some centuries, it became a universal requirement in the Roman Rite "
Celibacy as a Means to Holiness in the Priesthood
The priest’s path to holiness very much involves his celibacy. His celibacy is a very good thing. He gives up the good of marriage, the human companionship of it, so that he can give himself more fully to God. Indeed, isn’t that what St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians? He says that the married person’s heart is divided (I Cor. 7:33). He doesn’t say that as a bad thing, of course. How could marriage be a bad thing when Christ ennobled it by making it a sacrament? But he is saying that the reality of it is that one cannot give himself as fully to God because one is trying to please his spouse as well as God. The virgin doesn’t have that difficulty. The virgin, by being unmarried “for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), can give himself or herself more fully to God. It is a means to an end, a very important means to an end.
It is true that in the early Church many priests and bishops were married. But the Church quickly discovered how exclusionary these two vocations were. Just from a practical viewpoint, how many of us would try to live two vocations at the same time? There is too much to do! And so, in certain localities in the early Church celibacy was instituted as a mandatory requirement for the priesthood, and then, after some centuries, it became a universal requirement in the Roman Rite — a very common sense, necessary requirement.
In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, married men are permitted to become priests, but these represent a very small percentage of the total number of Catholic priests in the world. As rich and as dignified a culture and history as the Eastern rites have, they are a small minority (less than 3% of the world Catholic population, according to pre-Vatican II National Catholic Almanac statistics). What is permitted to them, because of cultural and historical factors, is not thereby automatically for the betterment of the entire Church. Therefore, proponents of a married clergy in the Western rites of the Church (the Roman rite being the overwhelmingly predominant one) cannot find an argument here.
Even in the Eastern rites, a priest is forbidden to marry again if his wife were to die. Only before ordination is he allowed to be married; if his wife passes away, then no subsequent marriage whatsoever is permitted to him. For bishops, marriage is never permitted. We see then, even in the Eastern rites there is that understanding that these tend to exclude one another. They are very different paths of life and, practically speaking, it is near-impossible for one man to accomplish both of them.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
But the difference between a promise and a vow in the Church is not a matter of semantics. It is a mater of doctrine.<<<<Secular priests take no vows, they make promises, only religious enter into vows. >>>>
Rather than argue semantics - I’d rather submit this excerpt from a Sermon
Priests can never marry, the Church has never allowed for this.
The Church has allowed, and does allow, married men to be ordained. The fact that secular priests make a promise of celibacy and the Latin Church does not allow the ordination of married men is a matter of discipline that can be, and has been, dispensed from. It can change also.
Religious on the other hand take the vow of chastity which means that they can never marry nor can they take this vow if they are already married.
As I said, it is more than semantics.
H
His_Princess
Guest
Jesus wasn’t married, why should someone who represents him do the opposite? Orthodox priests, I don’t know!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.