Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on December 10, 2015, 09:20:26 AM
-
Is it feasible for Roman Catholicism to allow men already married to be priests? the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do it, why not us? thoughts?
-
Is a married clergy in the Roman Rite theologically possible? Yes. Of course.
Is it advisable? No. This would be such a drastic change in the traditional practices of the Roman Rite that it would be even more destructive of the Church than all the other changes have already been.
Is it feasible? First, the definition of feasible is: Capable of being accomplished or brought about; possible; Capable of being used or dealt with successfully. Due to this definition, the answer to the question is no. A married clergy in the Roman Rite is not feasible at this time because there exists no authority at this time capable of changing canon law to allow such a thing.
Question for the OP: Why post this question in the anonymous forum? The question is not one of a sensitive nature in which anonymity would be needed or even desired.
-
Obviously the Op had a REASON for privacy.
Too often we look at the subject matter and conclude it is not worthy of anonimity
but we don't know the circuмstances surrounding the query or statement or even further posts by others.
The whole purpose of an anonymous thread is privacy which we shouldn't invade.
-
Sorry, forgot to click the DO NOT post this Anonymously box .
-
It could happen. If it does ever come back, I don't see it happening Roman rite-wide. Maybe certain countries who have a shortage of priests consider it.
It would also be the only way a married Pope would ever exist, as cardinals (at least in these current times; there have been cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, even) are derived from the episcopacy and in the East, they come from the monastic orders and are celibate.
-
It could happen. If it does ever come back, I don't see it happening Roman rite-wide. Maybe certain countries who have a shortage of priests consider it.
It would also be the only way a married Pope would ever exist, as cardinals (at least in these current times; there have been cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, even) are derived from the episcopacy and in the East, they come from the monastic orders and are celibate.
There is absolutely no tradition in the Church, East or West, of a married episcopacy after Apostolic times. A married pope would be an abomination.
Obviously the Op had a REASON for privacy.
It is not obvious in any way. Nor is asking the question is not invading the privacy of the OP as the OP obviously has the option to not answering.
-
During normal times in the Latin Rite Priests should be celibate for any number of reasons. To devote themselves 100% to a large parish. To devote themselves 100% to God. IMO, Marriage with children and the Priesthood both deserve 100% of one's attention. Pius XII allowed married Anglican clergy converts to become valid Priests in the Catholic Church but that was by exception. If and when the Church gets restored to normality the married priests should be phased out, i.e. not continued or added to but the Church should retain the discipline in effect for the 1000 years up until the death of Pius XII. An ordained person should not get married after being ordained regardless of the times as should be obvious from the long established discipline. Married Priests must submit to what the next valid Pope declares in their cases or die outside the Church. The next valid Pope would not allow future ordinations of married men in the Latin Rite.
When we have a valid Pope, Priests who prove to be unworthy would be able to be ferreted out as the Faithful would be able to report any of their errors and or tyrannical acts to one who can hold them accountable. Those "ordained" in the new rite would need to be looked at in regards to whether they have a legitimate vocation or not but would have to cease pretending to be Priests until (if or when) they are validly ordained for obvious reasons.
The next valid Pope's first issue, IMO, would be the problems that resulted from and since V2 and "putting the Church back" in a secure and Catholic place in regards to the liturgy and Sacraments, and in regards to clarifying the novelties, errors and heresies of V2, declaring the council to be invalid of course. He would clarify the Feeneyism issue. He would clearly teach on all the controversies of the day and show anyone who did not like the teaching where the door is. The Church needs to be purged of the modernists. Then look to the valid Priests who claim to be Catholic and loyal to the Holy See and the needs of the faithful in regards to having access to the Sacraments. Obviously any validly ordained Priest who is a public heretic or not loyal to the Papacy would be declared to be non-Catholic and or schismatic. This is when he would either allow the Catholic married Priests to continue their apostolate as is, reduce it to being very private or forbid the Priests to fulfill their orders at all apart from extreme necessity. This after verifying the validity of their orders and getting those who need to be conditionally ordained ordained if in fact it is deemed that they should continue in their orders.
-
During normal times in the Latin Rite
never has there been normal times in the church since men have been sinners
-
Anyone who muses about the Church opening up the priesthood to married men has not spent time at a Seminary or read many books about the priesthood and what it's about.
That is to say, they haven't learned about (much less meditated upon) the grave responsibility and dignity of the priesthood.
-
This is very true and Eastern Rite Priests should reflect on this as the married Anglican clergy who were allowed to be Priests under Pius XII. Pius XII himself should have reflected on it as the Church herself for the first 1000 years of her existence. At least we know now.
Saint Hilary pray that we get a Pope soon so the dogmatic opinions will end and so we can focus on saving souls instead of all the problems that come with having no Pope for so long.
-
During normal times in the Latin Rite
never has there been normal times in the church since men have been sinners
How about normal from 400 AD - 1958? I'd settle for all the fluctuation during those times compared to since. I'd even take 33 - 400 as being more normal that since 1958. At least that is what I took the poster to mean.
-
Perhaps it's time to look at how celibacy (unmarried men) came about in the church.
It came as a continuation from the Jєωιѕн Temple rites.
When it was a priests turn to offer sacrifice in the temple, he had to remain celibate from his wife for the time he was on duty and possibly the two weeks before.(Pg 94)
A Priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass DAILY so therefore must remain celebate always. NO MARRIED PRIESTS.
Also, both men and women ate the first Passover in Egypt but afterwards God gave them special regulations and restricted the feast to men alone (Pg 131)
That is why there were no women at the Last Supper and why ONLY MEN CAN BE PRIESTS.
Christ said He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.
In the book, How Christ Said the First Mass by Father James Meagher D.D. 1906 are examples of where the Church gets her rubrics, ceremonies, traditions etc. ....everything from why we use holy water Pg 56 , why the clergy wear cassocks and their different colours Pg 297, why 3 P.M. is important Pg 92, death of the scapegoat Pg 74, Judas, Caiphas' nephew the only strict Jew among the apostles Pg 247. only linen to be used for altar cloths at Mass Pg 287 Jerusalem first called Salem "peace" by Melchisedech then Jireh "possession" by Abraham then joined to make Jerusalem "City of Peace" Pg 224.
Sem, Noah's son became know as Melchisedech the just king Pg 223
If we just knew why Christ continued to do traditional things we wouldn't be questioning every little thing and certainly not the big things.
I recommend this book to everyone looking for answers. I've quoted from the Tan edition 1984 which is word for word from the original but EACH PAGE is headed with the subject of that page and makes for easy reference.
-
Sorry, forgot again to hit the Do Not Post Anonymously
-
Eastern Orthodox priests can get ordained if they were already married. Their priests don't typically get married after they've been ordained - at least that's what I've been told.
I think if they opened the door to married priest the seminary would be full of unsuitable men. You would get men that wouldn't want to make priesthood their whole life.
-
Anyone who muses about the Church opening up the priesthood to married men has not spent time at a Seminary or read many books about the priesthood and what it's about.
That is to say, they haven't learned about (much less meditated upon) the grave responsibility and dignity of the priesthood.
Evidently, there are quite a few Conciliar priests and bishops who haven't spent much time at a Seminary, read many books about the priesthood, or learned about (much less meditated upon) the grave responsibility and dignity of the priesthood, because that's where I hear the most talk in favor of it.
-
Eastern Orthodox priests can get ordained if they were already married. Their priests don't typically get married after they've been ordained - at least that's what I've been told.
I think if they opened the door to married priest the seminary would be full of unsuitable men. You would get men that wouldn't want to make priesthood their whole life.
This is how it was among the Eastern Catholics outside America (where they were under Latin-rite jurisdiction) for a while. I think it wasn't until last year that it actually happened again.
-
Is it feasible for Roman Catholicism to allow men already married to be priests? the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do it, why not us? thoughts?
Why mention "Orthodox"? They are schismatic. I very bad sign for you as a poster to mention that!
-
Is it feasible for Roman Catholicism to allow men already married to be priests? the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do it, why not us? thoughts?
Why mention "Orthodox"? They are schismatic. I very bad sign for you as a poster to mention that!
Good point. The "Orthodox" are not an option for any Catholic who wants to save his soul, any more than the Lutherans or the Baptists. The Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church, period.
The Orthodox are not to be confused with Eastern Rite CATHOLICS or the Uniates (those in union with Rome).
-
Read this article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
Nevertheless, when the Old Catholics abolished compulsory celibacy for the priesthood, Dr. Döllinger, as we are told by the intimate friend of his, an Anglican, was "sorely grieved" by the step, and this seems to have been one of the principal things which kept him from any formal participation in the Old Catholic communion. In reference to this matter he wrote to the same Anglican friend:
You in England cannot understand how completely engrained it is into our people that a priest is a man who sacrifices himself for the sake of his parishioners. He has no children of his own, in order that all the children in the parish may be his children. His people know that his small wants are supplied, and that he can devote all his time and thought to them. They know that it is quite otherwise with the married pastors of the Protestants. The pastor's income may be enough for himself, but it is not enough for his wife and children also. In order to maintain them he must take other work, literary or scholastic, only a portion of his time can be given to his people; and they know that when the interests of his family and those of his flock collide, his family must come first and his flock second. In short, he has a profession or trade, a Gewerbe, rather than a vocation; he has to earn a livelihood. In almost all Catholic congregations, a priest who married would be ruined; all his influence would be gone. The people are not at all ready for so fundamental a change, and the circuмstances of the clergy do not admit of it. It is a fatal resolution. (A. Plummer in "The Expositor", December, 1890, p. 470.)
A testimony given under such circuмstances carries more weight than long explanations would do. Neither was it the only occasion on which the historian so expressed himself. "When a priest", Döllinger wrote in a letter to one of his Old Catholic friends in 1876, "can no longer point to personal sacrifice which he makes for the good of his people, then it is all over with him and the cause which he represents. He sinks to the level of men who make a trade of their work [Er rangiert dann mit den Gewerbetreibenden]." (See Michael, Ignaz von Döllinger, ed. 1894, p. 249.)
Supposing always that the vow of celibacy is faithfully kept, the power which this practical lesson in disinterestedness must lend to the priest's exhortations when addressing his people is too obvious to need insisting upon. Numberless observers, Protestant and Agnostic as well as Catholic, have borne the obstacles to really confidential relations and more especially to confession in the case of the married clergy — even if this difficulty is often quite unfairly exaggerated in the many current stories of Anglican clergymen sharing the secrets of the confessional with their wives — are certainly real enough. When the once famous Père Hyacinth (M. Loyson) left the Church and married, this was the first point which once struck a free-thinker like George Sand. "Will Père Hyacinthe still hear confessions?" she wrote. "That is the question. Is the secrecy of the confessional compatible with the mutual confidences of conjugal love? If I were a Catholic, I would say to my children: 'Have no secrets which cost too much in the telling and then you will no cause to fear the gossip of the vicar's wife'."
Again, with regard to missionary work in barbarous countries, the advantages which lies with a celibate clergy can hardly need insisting upon and are freely admitted both by indifferent observers and by the non-Catholic missionaries themselves. The testimonies which have been gathered in such a work as Marshall's "Children Missions" are calculated perhaps, from their juxtaposition, to give an exaggerated impression, while the editor's bantering tone will sometimes wound and repel: but the indictment is substantially accurate, and the materials for a continuation of this standard work, which have been collected from recent sources by the Rev. B. Solferstan, S.J., in every respect bear out Marshall's main contention. Over and over again the admission is made by well-qualified observers, who are themselves either indifferent or opposed to the Catholic Faith, that whatever genuine work of conversion is done, is effected by the Catholic missionaries whose celibate condition permits them to live among the natives as one of themselves. See, for example, to speak only of China, Stoddard, "Life of Isabella Bird", (1906), pp. 319-320; Arnot Reid, "Peking to Petersburgh" (1897), p. 73; Professor E.H. Parker, "China Past and Present" (1903), pp. 95-96.
The comparatively slight cost of the Catholic missions with their unmarried clergy need not be dwelt upon. To take a single example, the late Anglican Bishop Bickersteth, the much-respected Bishop of South Tokio, Japan, describes in one of his published letters how he had "a good deal of talk" with a Catholic vicar Apostolic, who was on his way to China. Whereupon Bickersteth remarks that "Roman Catholics certainly can teach us much by their readiness to bear hardships. This man and his priests are at times subject to the most serious privations I should fear. In Japan a Roman priest gets one-seventh of what the Church Missionary Society and the Society of the Gospel allow to an unmarried deacon. Of course they can only live on the food of the country." (See "The Life and Letters of Edward Bickersteth", 2nd ed., London, 1905), p. 214) With regard again to the effect upon a priest's work the following candid testimony from a distinguished married clergyman and professor of Trinity College, Dublin, is very striking. "But from the point of view of preaching", writes Professor Mahaffy, "there can be little doubt that married life creates great difficulties and hindrances. The distractions caused by sickness and other human misfortunes increase necessarily in proportion to the number of the household; and as the clergy in all countries are likely to have large families the time which might be spent in meditation on their discourses is stolen from them by other duties and other cares. The Catholic priest when his daily round of outdoor duties is over, comes home to a quiet study, where there is nothing to disturb his thoughts. The family man is met at the door by troops of children welcoming his return and claiming his interest in all their little affairs. Or else the disagreements of the household demand him as an umpire and his mind is disturbed by no mere speculative contemplation of the faults and follies of mankind but by their actual invasion of his home." (Mahaffy, The Decay of Modern Preaching, London, 1882, p. 42.)
-
I think if they opened the door to married priest the seminary would be full of unsuitable men.
The Newchurch seminaries are already full of unsuitable "men". A lot of them are crypto-fαɢs, and many of them have pedo tendencies. At least with married priests, it would be far less unsuitable than the fαɢɢօtry that infests the Novus Ordo priesthood and seminaries, now.
-
Pray for those who are married that are Eastern Clergy
that they set a good example for those who are single.
-
"normal times in the church"
-
Bunch of crap, probably from facebook.
-
This is old and has been proven false in the past. Do not believe it - it is crap.
-
Yes, it was probably anti-Catholic propaganda from Protestants.
-
Benedict IX was a sodomite as St Peter Damian declared. Pope Victor III stated he was the vilest man in history. we should not dismiss these things as coming from protestants when a Saint said the same thing. Popes are not infallible in all their actions, to not accept that a handful of popes were as bad as their contemporaries said is rubbish. yes some of these things were calumnies from protestants but many were not
-
Benedict IX was a sodomite as St Peter Damian declared. Pope Victor III stated he was the vilest man in history. we should not dismiss these things as coming from protestants when a Saint said the same thing. Popes are not infallible in all their actions, to not accept that a handful of popes were as bad as their contemporaries said is rubbish. yes some of these things were calumnies from protestants but many were not
Even if true, what good purpose can be served by resurrecting such scandal?
-
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, delivered the concluding address at a recent conference on clerical celibacy as a pathway to freedom.
Speaking at Pontifical Gregorian University on February 6, Cardinal Parolin said that celibacy, far from being an “inhuman” demand, allows a priest to serve the Lord with a “free and undivided heart,” configures him in a special way to Christ, and leaves him more free for his priestly mission.
Other speakers at the conference included Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Joël Mercier, the secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=27448
-
http://www.bartleby.com/210/1/141.html
He was married before his conversion to the faith; and his wife, by whom he had a daughter named Apra, or Abram, was yet living when he was chosen bishop of Poictiers, about the year 353; but from the time of his ordination he lived in perpetual continency.
-
By the way, it's ONE GUY who keeps posting all the pro-married-priests propaganda. He is one of those can't-really-call-him-Trad's who opted to go Eastern Rite even though his family isn't from that part of the world, not at all.
Instead of going to chapels outside the Conciliar Church structure (SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Independent, sedevacantist), or even within the Conciliar Church structure (Indult, FSSP, ICK), a few Catholics decide to change their nation/race and pretend they're oriental Catholics.
I don't see how that's a solution -- I don't have any personal experience with the Eastern Rites, but I've heard they were ALL touched by Vatican II. Maybe some aren't as bad as others, but they all fall short of going to a Tridentine Rite Mass somewhere in the West.
Anyhow, my point is that his propaganda is stupid. His long post about all the bad popes "all unmarried" tries to suggest that if they had been allowed to marry, they might not have had problems with purity.
He also claims that because we had a few bad popes who had concubines and other illicit partners, that it constitutes a sort of "tradition" of non-celibacy in the West. Give me a break! They flaunted morality and the rules. They don't count!
Celibacy in the West goes back almost to the very beginning. There is a reason for that. Trying to "turn back the clock" is always disastrous in the case of the Catholic Church, and in fact it has a name: archaeologism. Just look at Vatican II.
My example is: Penicillin used to be awesome for killing infections -- in 1900. But if a doctor prescribed the original dosage of Penicillin today for every infection, his patients wouldn't improve. 2016 is not 1900. Bugs have gotten stronger since then.
Likewise, until you wake up and (for some reason) your calendar reads "50" instead of "2016", we're not going to roll back the clocks on clerical celibacy.
In fact, I don't think there is any evidence that any priest, bishop or pope FATHERED CHILDREN (to put it delicately) while possessing the sacred character of the priesthood. If he had a wife, they either separated or lived as brother and sister.
Allowing married men to be ordained and having protestant style "married man ministers" are two completely different things.
Also recall how the pious American indian tribes used to discern how much more the Jesuits loved them and were devoted to them...because they didn't have families. They saw protestant ministers and decided they were working "part time" to convert them, whereas the Catholic priests were 100% wholly devoted to spreading the Faith, putting their money where their mouth was.
This is just ONE of the many reasons the Church required its priests to be single.
-
He is one of those can't-really-call-him-Trad's who opted to go Eastern Rite even though his family isn't from that part of the world, not at all. a few Catholics decide to change their nation/race and pretend they're oriental Catholics.
never pretended to be eastern rite. have always been Latin rite. ps i do have family from that part of the world
I don't see how that's a solution -- I don't have any personal experience with the Eastern Rites, but I've heard they were ALL touched by Vatican II.
:confused1:
from whom? Latin rite Catholics who as you say are not part of that world?
His long post about all the bad popes "all unmarried" tries to suggest that if they had been allowed to marry, they might not have had problems with purity.
false i do not believe in married Latin clergy. the list was a way of pointing out that the statement that celibacy was always the norm is not historically accurate otherwise Pope Gregory would not have had to make it mandatory.
He also claims that because we had a few bad popes who had concubines and other illicit partners, that it constitutes a sort of "tradition" of non-celibacy in the West. Give me a break! They flaunted morality and the rules. They don't count!
I never claimed that see above "false i do not believe in married Latin clergy"
In fact, I don't think there is any evidence that any priest, bishop or pope FATHERED CHILDREN (to put it delicately) while possessing the sacred character of the priesthood. If he had a wife, they either separated or lived as brother and sister.
:facepalm:
why then were there canonical penalties for that very thing then?
celibacy is and will always be the norm for Latin rite priests. my point was that men sin and even priests sin. that shows how beautiful celibacy is, the vast majority of priests and clerics are and will be celibate.
I never advocated married priesthood in the Latin Rite. period. [/i]
-
Again, I meant to say "with approval of the Church".
Of course the Church is going to condemn the evildoers when they do things against Church teaching, morality, and laws. So it doesn't surprise me that they would have to censure priests having illegitimate children, concubines, etc.
I didn't mean to deny that it happened at all -- I just deny that it happened with no sin or scandal involved.
-
Pope Leo XIII responds:
It has most especially been the habit of the Roman Church, the head of all the Churches, to render to the Churches of the East a great degree of honor and love in remembrance of the Apostles, to rejoice in her turn in their faithful obedience. Amidst changing and difficult times, she has never failed in any way in farsightedness and acts of kindness to sustain them against the forces that would strike them again and again, to hold fast to those that were overwhelmed, to call back those in discord with her. Nor was it the last expression of her watchfulness that she guard and preserve in them whole and entire forever the customs and distinct forms for administering the sacraments that she had declared legitimate in her wise jurisdiction.
For that very reason, even as her Apostolic origin is all the more proven especially by these Churches of the East, at the selfsame moment there shines out and is made manifest these Churches' original, complete unity with the Roman Church.
Instead of going to chapels outside the Conciliar Church structure (SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Independent, sedevacantist), or even within the Conciliar Church structure (Indult, FSSP, ICK), a few Catholics decide to change their nation/race and pretend they're oriental Catholics.
Leo XIII again:
To the faithful it is granted to receive Communion in any rite, not only in those locales where there is no church or priest of their own rite - as in the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of 18 August 1893 - but also, when owing to the great distance of a church of their own rite, they are unable to assist except with serious inconvenience. In this case the judgment belongs to the Ordinary. This principle remains unchanged: One who receives Communion in another rite, even for a long time, is not on that account to be considered to have changed his rite.
Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.
Anyone of an Eastern rite that resides outside the patriarchal territory will be under the administration of the Latin clergy
the above from Leo's encyclical on the eastern rites