Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Incredulous on September 12, 2013, 05:30:15 PM
-
(http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/news/Parolin%20Pope.jpg)
Francis-Bergoglio's Recent Appointee as His No. 2 Guy, Pietro Parolin
Has Told a Newspaper of Communist-Socialist Venezuela
That He and Bergoglio Are Contemplating Dumping
Catholic and Apostolic Celibacy for Clergy
"... because It Would "Reflect the Democratic Spirit of the Time"
(http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1308r.jpg)
Francis-Bergoglio Chats with Monsignor Battista Ricca
Whom He Appointed to Head the Vatican Bank
-
He's gonna be worse than Paul VI, if that is possible.
-
What do you mean, "gonna be"?
Paul the Sick never suggested for a minute that he wasn't (in his own mind), or didn't want to be, the Pope.
-
What do you mean, "gonna be"?
Paul the Sick never suggested for a minute that he wasn't (in his own mind), or didn't want to be, the Pope.
Francis has yet to do anything as bad as Vatican II or taking away the Mass and replacing it with a sacrilege.
-
What do you mean, "gonna be"?
Paul the Sick never suggested for a minute that he wasn't (in his own mind), or didn't want to be, the Pope.
Francis has yet to do anything as bad as Vatican II or taking away the Mass and replacing it with a sacrilege.
So far what he says/doesn't say and his actions/ inactions, just seem in line with Vatican II. However, he does seem to be more obvious and he also seems to have done m a lot more questionable things in a shorter span of time than any of his predecessors. The fact that his pontificate has just begun really worries me.
-
As I mentioned on the other thread in "General", priestly celibacy would be the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about his overall heresies. Eastern Rites have always allowed marries priests.
-
As I mentioned on the other thread in "General", priestly celibacy would be the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about his overall heresies. Eastern Rites have always allowed marries priests.
I think this by itself wouldn't bother me, but I happen to believe that this is just another ecuмenical step towards the Orthodox. In other words, this has more to do with pleasing (and making nice-nice with) another religion than making (disciplinary) changes that are best for the one, true religion.
-
I agree. Taken in isolation, less troublesome; which is why I said that if this were the ONLY thing he was up to. He seems to have a program of widespread destruction of anything that might be seen as traditional.
Bergoglio makes JP2 the Great seem like St. Pius X. JP2 the Great. Jorge the Heretic. Man is this guy bad news. I know that even FSSP and other regularized trad types are finding him hard to stomach and they're worried about him pulling the rug out of under them.
On the plus side, this might help unite Traditionalists ... drive FSSP out of the NO establishment, and everyone becomes sedevantist. Bergoglio definitely pushes the envelope when it comes to remaining a sedeplenist.
-
As I mentioned on the other thread in "General", priestly celibacy would be the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about his overall heresies. Eastern Rites have always allowed marries priests.
You are aware that the Church permitted married clergy so that the Eastern's would not become fully Schismatic much before 1054 A.D. . In fact from Nicea to the Schism of Photius most of the East during that period of time was in Schism with the Roman Church. Approximately 300 hundred of those 500+ years the East was in schism with the Pope. I will later post some dates and figures to prove my claim, but for now just take my assertion with a grain of salt until I present my evidence. So that this was more about not allowing the whole East to go Schismatic at a much earlier date then it did in reality at 1054 A.D.
The Council of Nicea said with the unanimous consent of the Bishops present, that celibacy was of apostolic origin... That means that this is not a matter of discipline, but doctrine despite what any liberal might tell you or argue.
The Canons of Council of Chalcedon surprisingly contradicted Nicea! Now of course the Roman Pontiff did not accept those Canons which the schismatics accepted as legitimate especially those dealing with "Married" clergy and the whole celibacy issue. Some will point out how in certain parts of Europe during the Middle Ages there were priest who had nepotism, several children outside of wedlock etc... So that for all practical purposes the priestly celibacy issue was totally ignored... Well the good thing when it comes to Catholic Dogma and Doctrine, is you don't need numbers to make your argument coherent. Just because certain individuals ignore the teaching of the Church, does not make it "right" even if it is in some cases a majority.
I hope that this makes the issue crystal clear for you, I would definitely not treat this as a non-issue. This would be another infallible way of knowing that the men seating in the Vatican are false claimants with zilch of authority over Catholics.
-
Just because celibacy as a recommendation has Apostolic origin does NOT mean that it was required.
[2] It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, [3] Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. [5] But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
To say that allowing married priests would be an argument for sedevacantism is just plain silly.
-
Just because celibacy as a recommendation has Apostolic origin does NOT mean that it was required.
[2] It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, [3] Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. [5] But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
To say that allowing married priests would be an argument for sedevacantism is just plain silly.
The Council of Nicea was not "a recommendation" it is a unanimous opinion of all the Eastern Father's with the consent of the Roman Pontiff and on top of that it is well known how none of the Apostles went back with their wives after having met the Lord and went into the ministry. It was an Ecuмenical Council and all of its Canons were approved by the Roman Church, I simply can't see how you think its just a "recommendation." In addition to that St. Jerome writes in his commentary along with some other Fathers of the Church, how being the husband of one wife is understood "married to the Church." It was the opinion of the Father's that a Bishop should not move into other Diocese's and that is what was meant by "one" wife. I don't think I have read all of the Father's on that particular verse but might serve well is to look at St. Thomas of Aquinas Catena Aurea as a good starter. There has been bloody wars over issues lesser then this, and yes this would prove without a doubt the Sedevacantist stance.
If priestly celibacy was just Ecclesiastical faith, in fact one of the most ANCIENT proposed teachings from the Church. Stemming back to the Apostles themselves, and formally defined at Nicea. It definitely falls under several different categories for theological censures, but lets take the one that is least harmful for your soul... Heresy...
Msgr. Caterchini Theological Notes (http://(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium. Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind. Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.):
(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
It is part of a Canon of the first Council of the Church, how is it not required? Please tell me whatever sophistry you might come up with that will defend a heretical opinion. I have already explained to you already, that the reason the Roman Church the mother and mistress of all Churches has authoritatively taught WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt that it is not disciplinary but to deny that would be a mortal sin against faith. There is a Novus Ordo "Cardinal" that wrote about this topic very well, I believe it was Fr. Stickler. I will later post his book as I don't have it scanned it might take me a while to quote the relevant parts of his book. Quite a masterpiece of a work I must say.
It is interesting how the Eastern Church believes that it can dissolve marriages, now this is not surprising to me because they already accepted heresy on the subject of priestly celibacy since they are both intimately connected. It is also interesting that even in the Eastern Church married priest are reduced to second class priest, the faithful generally go for spiritual direction and confession to the unmarried priest etc... That is the work of heretics and this was one of those big things that they were unwilling to budge on, so the Roman Church in its mercy permitted for the sake of their souls to have a very strict policy on married priest. It is well known that we generally discourage married priest, and that the % of married Eastern Rite priest are very few when compared % to the Orthodox. All of these things put together make it pretty clear that it was something that the Roman Church did out of Mercy and it was a concession to heretics.
Take the case of the Hussites particularly with receiving communion with both species, bread and wine. Now I just quoted to you that to deny this is Heresy against Ecclesiastical Faith. Despite that Rome permitted them to receive under both kinds because they would not budge on that one particular issue, so in order to prevent a GREATER schism it was permissible for the sake of their eternal souls to have special permission to do otherwise. This was also done at the Council of Florence with the Eastern's, this is something that is done especially when the root cause of the problem are a few propositions.
It is interesting to see how one heresy leads to many other's, because to deny ONE just one thing proposed by the Church leads to disaster: The distinctive tenet of the Hussites is the necessity, alike for priest and layman of Communion under both kinds, sub utraque specie whence the term Utraquists. Hus himself never preached Utraquism. During his presence at the Council of Constance, his successor in influence at the university of Prague Jacobellus von Mies, taking His stand on the Bible as the supreme rule of faith and practice in the Church, persuaded the people that partaking of the chalice was of absolute necessity for salvation, this being expressly taught by Christ: "Amen amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (John 6:54)
...Here Utraquism entered upon a new development. The priests of Austi, starting from the principle that the Bible contained the whole teaching of Christ, abolished every traditional rite and liturgy. There were to be no more churches, altars, vestments, sacred vessels, chants, or ceremonies. The Lord's Prayer was the only liturgical prayer; the communion table was a common table with common bread and common appointments, the celebrant wore his everyday clothes and was untonsured. Children were baptized with the first water at hand and without any further ceremony they received Communion in both kinds immediately after Baptism. Extreme unction and auricular confession were abolished; mortal sins were to be confessed in public. Purgatory and the worship of saints were suppressed, likewise all feasts and fasts. Such a creed accounts for the fury of destruction which possessed the Hussites.
...Among the Taborites, a new sect arose about this time. The priest Martin Loquis taught these rabid levellers of monasteries and murderers of priests that Christ was not really present in the Eucharist; consequently, that worshipping the sacrament was idolatry. Sacrilegious profanations became the order of the day. Proceedings were taken by the Utraquist authorities, advised by the university, against the innovators. Loquis and another were taken prisoners, dragged through the country, cruelly tortured and finally burnt in a barrel. His four hundred followers were expelled from Tabor. For some time they roamed through the country "as avenging angels", robbing, burning, and killing. Ziska, in disgust, had twenty-four (some say fifty) of the worst put to death by fire. The remainder, reinforced by some fanatical Chiliasts, formed a sect of Adamites subject to no law and possessing their women in common. Ziska surrounded them on their island in the River Nezárka and exterminated them to the last man (October, 1421). The summer of 1421 was employed by the Hussites in consolidating their new power. Successful expeditions penetrated to the northwestern border, burned more monasteries, killed more monks, priests, and inoffensive citizens; but here also they suffered their first serious defeat at the hands of Catholic knights and the troops of Meissen (5 August, 1421).
.... In 1431 a fourth crusade, sent by the unbending Martin V, entered Bohemia. The crusaders numbered 90,000 foot and 40,000 horse; they were accompanied by the papal legate and commanded by the Electoral Prince Frederick of Brandenburg. They met a strong army of Hussites at Taus. The wild war-songs of the enemy filled the soldiers of the Cross with uncontrollable fear; once more they fled in disorder, losing many men and 300 wagons of stores (14 August, 1431). After so many reverses the Catholics realized that peace was only to be attained by concessions to the Hussites. Advances were made by Emperor Sigismund and by the Council of Basle, which was then sitting. A meeting of the contending parties' delegates took place at Eger, where preliminaries for further discussion at Basle were agreed upon.
...The council, chiefly bent on safeguarding the dogma, consented to the following disciplinary articles, known as the Compactata of Basle:
In Bohemia and Moravia, communion under both kinds is to be given to all adults who desire it,
All mortal sins, especially public ones, shall be publicly punished by the lawful authorities;
The Word of God may be freely preached by approved preachers but without infringing papal authority;
Secular power shall not be exercised by the clergy bound by vows to the contrary; other clergy, and the Church itself may acquire and hold temporal goods, but merely as administrators and such."
...Judging by its results this was a step in the right direction. By degrees the Utraquists conformed to the Roman rites so as to be hardly distinguishable from them, except through the chalice for the laity. In the sixteenth century they resisted Lutheran inroads even better than the Subunists.
Now I quoted a lot so that others might be able to see, that the Church in Her wisdom saw that to safeguard from the heretics it made a concession... This was the same CASE as it was with the Eastern Schismatics at the Council of Chalcedon, most especially after the heretics Nestorius and Eutychius were bringing the entire East with them. So the Roman Church decided similarly to the case of the Hussites to make a concession for the good of their eternal salvation. However, notice how dogma was kept in tact and it was only a concession to a certain group for the hardness of their heart. The Church wisely knows that once they are in communion over time the radical tendencies will be kept in check and the novelty will cease to have its destructive effects. Even though the Eastern Rite Catholics can have married clergy the majority of them do not recourse to it, because it is generally discouraged. This is something that the Ecuмeniacs would complain a lot about the "pressure" the Roman Church would bring upon them about married priest. Also don't forget that Eastern Rite priest were not permitted to bring their family with them in the United States because of the scandal it would cause to the faithful, similar rules were put in place in other Western countries.
It is the talk of heretics to defend error, and although you might still believe in priestly celibacy that is how all errors start. Through the downgrading of Catholic doctrine as "unimportant" or "unnecessary." If you know your history of the Church well enough you can very easily detect the tendencies of heretics and the argumentation used before. That is why when you quoted the Letter to Timothy from St. Paul, you are using like the Protestants the Sacred Scriptures against the authority of the Church... Just like the Hussites would quote "Unless you eat the flesh..." against the Church... The Sacred Scriptures are a subset within tradition, which is both oral and written. The written is not greater then the oral and vice-versa it is the prerogative of the Church to decide matters that deal with faith and morals. The Church through her Council's, apostolic tradition and many other ways taught CLEARLY priestly celibacy is not just "recommended" but mandatory under pain of mortal sin. Just because it makes concessions to certain groups does not lessen any more its Universal teaching. Especially if you understand it from its historical roots and why is it that they did something like that.
+Pax vobis+
-
Article 4. Whether perpetual continence is required for religious perfection?
Objection 1. It would seem that perpetual continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm) is not required for religious perfection. For all perfection of the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) life began with Christ's apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Now the apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) do not appear to have observed continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm), as evidenced by Peter, of whose mother-in-law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) we read Matthew 8:14 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat008.htm#verse14). Therefore it would seem that perpetual continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm) is not requisite for religious perfection.
Objection 2. Further, the first example of perfection is shown to us in the person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) of Abraham (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01051a.htm), to whom the Lord said (Genesis 17:1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen017.htm#verse1)): "Walk before Me, and be perfect." Now the copy should not surpass the example. Therefore perpetual continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm) is not requisite for religious perfection.
Objection 3. Further, that which is required for religious perfection is to be found in every religious order. Now there are some religious who lead a married (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm) life. Therefore religious perfection does not require perpetual continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm).
On the contrary, The Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) says (2 Corinthians 7:1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co007.htm#verse1)): "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)." Now cleanness of flesh and spirit is safeguarded by continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm), for it is said (1 Corinthians 7:3 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co007.htm#verse3))4): "The unmarried woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) and the virgin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) thinketh on the things of the Lord that she may be holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) both in spirit and in body [Vulgate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm): 'both in body and in spirit]." Therefore religious perfection requires continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm).
I answer that, The religious state requires the removal of whatever hinders man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) from devoting himself entirely to God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) service. Now the use of sɛҳuąƖ union hinders the mind (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) from giving itself wholly to the service of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and this for two reasons. First, on account of its vehement delectation, which by frequent repetition increases concupiscence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm), as also the Philosopher (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) observes (Ethic. iii, 12): and hence it is that the use of venery withdraws the mind (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) from that perfect intentness on tending to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) expresses this when he says (Solil. i, 10): "I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), and those bodily contacts which belong to the married (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm) state." Secondly, because it involves man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) in solicitude for the control of his wife, his children, and his temporalities which serve for their upkeep. Hence the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) says (1 Corinthians 7:3 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co007.htm#verse3))2,33): "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm): but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife."
Therefore perpetual continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm), as well as voluntary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm) poverty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm), is requisite for religious perfection. Wherefore just as Vigilantius was condemned for equaling riches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15571a.htm) to poverty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm), so was Jovinian condemned for equaling marriage to virginity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm).
Reply to Objection 1. The perfection not only of poverty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm) but also of continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm) was introduced by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) Who said (Matthew 19:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat019.htm#verse12)): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm)," and then added: "He that can take, let him take it." And lest anyone should be deprived of the hope of attaining perfection, he admitted to the state of perfection those even who were married (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm). Now the husbands could not without committing an injustice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08010c.htm) forsake their wives, whereas men could without injustice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08010c.htm) renounce riches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15571a.htm). Wherefore Peter whom He found married (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm), He severed not from his wife, while "He withheld from marriage John who wished to marry" [Prolog. in Joan. among the supposititious works of St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm)].
Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (De Bono Conjug. xxii), "the chastity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm) of celibacy is better than the chastity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm) of marriage, one of which Abraham (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01051a.htm) had in use, both of them in habit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07099b.htm). For he lived chastely, and he might have been chaste without marrying, but it was not requisite then." Nevertheless if the patriarchs of old had perfection of mind together with wealth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15571a.htm) and marriage, which is a mark of the greatness of their virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm), this is no reason why any weaker person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) should presume to have such great virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm) that he can attain to perfection though rich and married (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm); as neither does a man unarmed presume to attack his enemy, because Samson slew many foes with the jaw-bone of an ass. For those fathers, had it been seasonable to observe continence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04330b.htm) and poverty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm), would have been most careful to observe them.
Reply to Objection 3. Such ways of living as admit of the use of marriage are not the religious life simply and absolutely speaking, but in a restricted sense, in so far as they have a certain share in those things that belong to the religious state.
Perpetual continence for clerics is of apostolic origin. See Card. Stickler's The Case for Clerical Celibacy (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/946356.The_Case_for_Clerical_Celibacy) and Roman Cholij's "Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/docuмents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html)."
-
And the best argument, from a homeschooling mom:
Why I don't think the married priesthood is a good idea, in general.... I think a lot of parishioners would be judging the pastor and his wife's family size... too big ("why should what WE put in the plate go to support all those kids?!? Oh, and he tells US to use NFP?!?") or too small ("they must be contracepting! Well, if Father and his Mrs. can limit their family size that way, why not US?!?") I'd hate to see the pastor's marital intimacies subjected to such close scrutiny, but I believe this would be the case. In this day and age, THAT is what it would look like.
:)
-
Come one now, the Church would never have tolerated a practice in the Eastern Churches that was inherently incompatible with Apostolic Tradition ... just to "avoid schism" any more than the Church countenanced Henry VIII's "annulment" in order to prevent England from going into schism. Give me a break.
Celibacy as an "evangelical counsel" was certainly of Apostolic origin, but it doesn't mean it was ever mandatory. With all due respect to St. Jerome, when St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy about a bishop being the husband of one wife, it's just silly to claim that this referred to being married to the Church, for the next sentence goes on to state that if one cannot properly govern his own family, then how can he govern the Church?
-
Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden:
'It happened that a person who was absorbed in prayer heard then a voice saying to her: "O you to whom it has been given to hear and see spiritually, hear now the things that I want to reveal to you: namely, concerning that archbishop who said that if he were pope, he would give leave for all clerics and priests to contract marriages in the flesh. He thought and believed that this would be more acceptable to God than that clerics should live dissolutely, as they now do. For he believed that through such marriage the greater carnal sins might be avoided; and even though he did not rightly understand God's will in this matter, nonetheless that same archbishop was still a friend of God.
But now I shall tell you God's will in this matter; for I gave birth to God himself. You will make these things known to my bishop and say to him that circuмcision was given to Abraham long before the law was given to Moses and that, in that time of Abraham, all human beings whatsoever were guided according to their own intellect and according to the choice of their own will and that, nevertheless, many of them were then friends of God. But after the law was given to Moses, it then pleased God more that human beings should live under the law and according to the law rather than follow their own human understanding and choice. It was the same with my Son's blessed Body.
For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in carnal matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jєωs, this had pleased him in the case of Jєωιѕн priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.
But that observance and ancient custom seemed very abominable and hateful to all the heavenly court and to me, who gave birth to his body: namely, because it was being thus observed by Christian priests who, with their hands, touch and handle this new and immaculate Sacrament of the most holy Body of my Son. For the Jєωs had, in the ancient law of the Old Testament, a shadow, i.e., a figure, of this Sacrament; but Christians now have the truth itself- namely, him who is true God an man - in that blessed and consecrated bread.
After those earlier Christian priests had observed these practices for a time, God himself, through the infusion of his Holy Spirit, put into the heart of the pope then guiding the Church another law more acceptable and pleasing to him in this matter: namely, by pouring this infusion into the heart of the pope so that he established a statute in the universal Church that Christian priests, who have so holy and so worthy an office, namely, of consecrating this precious Sacrament, should by no means live in the easily contaminated, carnal delight of marriage.
And therefore, through God's preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.
Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body's blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.
For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death."'
-
And the best argument, from a homeschooling mom:Why I don't think the married priesthood is a good idea, in general.... I think a lot of parishioners would be judging the pastor and his wife's family size... too big ("why should what WE put in the plate go to support all those kids?!? Oh, and he tells US to use NFP?!?") or too small ("they must be contracepting! Well, if Father and his Mrs. can limit their family size that way, why not US?!?") I'd hate to see the pastor's marital intimacies subjected to such close scrutiny, but I believe this would be the case. In this day and age, THAT is what it would look like.
:)
Agreed :alcohol:! Why not give special Diocesan scholarships for the 12 kids while we are it, after all it would be irresponsible not to take them to college :smirk:.
Dr. Dollinger (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm) remarks similarly: 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.
or
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'."
or
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 certainly would not take seriously a married priest :shocked:, even if he were Eastern Catholic (there are very few among the Catholic clergy thankfully). This is not just an isolated opinion, but this is the practical consequences that have happened to the Anglicans, Orthodox and other heretics... You can't choose God and Mammon at the same time. Attend the Divine Liturgy, yes, go to confession with him no. This is of course if I have no other celibate clergy around and this is the only mass that is licit to attend to. Most of the Saints that were married previously and became priest/Bishop's abandoned their wives (St. Augustine etc...) to serve the Church fully so that someone cannot "cite" them as examples of married clergy. What I mean is someone who is currently married (living the conjugal life) and a priest at the same time, big difference from someone who converted later to the Catholic faith and previously married. There are of course at times where the Apostolic See has allowed certain exceptions to the rule in some Anglican converts. Most of the time with these exceptions if it is possible the married man will obtain permission from his wife to stop living the conjugal life. None of this of course affects the teaching of priestly celibacy, because they are exceptions to the rule based on right reason and sound judgement. "St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm) further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, "even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands"."
Not done yet! :popcorn:
We have almost had near 2,000 years of experience and the only thing that has happened as a result from not keeping priestly celibacy has been nepotism. It has not fared well for the Church by not keeping Apostolic tradition which comes straight from Our Blessed Lord. Not our will, but Thy will be done. That is what we should be thinking about, don't forget this debate has been over since a VERY long time ago. No need to keep beating a dead dog, this heresy was dealt with a long time ago. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Amen.
Priestly celibacy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm): From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jєωs and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood.
Its also interesting to note from the article on Schism on the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm) how it lists this particular heretic Abbe Chatel, notice what sort of company you are with when you consider priestly celibacy as optional. How there are ENDLESS amount of heretics throughout the history of the Church attacking this doctrine it is almost unequalled to any other doctrine. Which is why I am so adamant about it. If the Conciliar Popes would have changed the rule Universally since before, that would have completely convinced me on that account alone. Now I know that Paul VI for all practical purposes abolished priestly celibacy de facto by "laicizing" the most amount of priest since the Protestant Reformation, Father John Hardon (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/priesthd/prstmart.htm) (who was deceived by the Conciliar sect sadly enough) says, "The Vatican, as I have said before, may not reveal the exact figures. It's close to one hundred thousand priests who have left the priesthood throughout the world in the past half-century. Nothing, nothing like it ever before!" However, it is still kept as De Jure in the New "Canon Law", but who knows for how long: In 1831 the Abbé Chatel founded the French Catholic Church, a small group which never acquired importance. The founder, who at first claimed to retain all the dogmas, had himself consecrated bishop by Fabre Palaprat, another self-styled bishop of the "Constitutional" type; he soon rejected the infallibility of the teaching Church, celibacy of priests, and abstinence. He recognized no rule of faith except individual evidence and he officiated in French. The sect was already on the point of being slain by ridicule when its meeting-places were closed by the Government in 1842.
...While this sect was declining another sprang up in antagonism to the Vatican Council. The opponents of the recently-defined doctrine of infallibility, the Old Catholics, at first contented themselves with a simple protest; at the Congress of Munich in 1871 they resolved to constitute a separate Church. Two years later they chose as bishop the Professor Reinkens of Breslau, who was recognized as bishop by Prussia, Baden, and Hesse. Thanks to official assistance the rebels succeeded in gaining possession of a number of Catholic churches and soon, like the German Catholics and schismatics in general, they introduced disciplinary and doctrinal novelties, they successively abandoned the precept of confession (1874), ecclesiastical celibacy (1878), the Roman liturgy, which was replaced (1880) by a German liturgy, etc. (Does this sound like some other sect more familiar to all of you: hint No_us O_do)
A Bishop is someone who has the fullness of the priesthood and even the Eastern Orthodox keep the rank of the Bishops among the celibate clergy. Just an interesting observation to note since it more fully explains the Roman Catholic doctrine of priestly celibacy.
Here are some of the respective canons from Nicea (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм01.htm) that deal with the topic respectively:
Canon 2: Since, either through necessity or through the importunate demands of certain individuals, there have been many breaches of the church's canon, with the result that men who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith after a short catechumenate have been admitted at once to the spiritual washing, and at the same time as their baptism have been promoted to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it is agreed that it would be well for nothing of the kind to occur in the future. For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism, for the apostle's words are clear: "Not a recent convert, or he may be puffed up and fall into the condemnation and the snare of the devil". But if with the passage of time some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the clergy. If anyone contravenes these regulations, he will be liable to forfeit his clerical status for acting in defiance of this great synod.
Canon 3: This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.
Canon 10: If any have been promoted to ordination through the ignorance of their promoters or even with their connivance, this fact does not prejudice the church's canon; for once discovered they are to be deposed. (My commentary here: So for example if someone would have ordained someone who was thought to be celibate was not truly celibate, he would then be able to be deposed later.)
As I have said mentioned before about the majority not following priestly celibacy is not a strong case for the opposite opinion. "Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church." Even if De facto the practice of priestly celibacy is not there anymore (like in Paul VI's case), the real important part is De Jure which will be a sure sign of a false Church.
In the controversies of this time the Masses said by these incontinent priests were sometimes described as "idolatrous"; but this word must not be pressed, as if it meant to insinuate that such priests were incapable of consecrating validly. The term was only loosely used, just as if it was also sometimes applied at the same period to any sort of homage rendered to an antipope. (Interesting analogy...)
...In 1897 there seem to have been 4025 parish churches in Greece, and these were served by 5423 married and 242 unmarried priests. (Greek Schismatics, please compare those numbers to the Greek Catholic priests...)
...
In the Russian Church, though a previous marriage seems to be, practically speaking, a conditio sine quâ non for ordination in the case of the secular clergy, still their canonists deny that this is a strict obligation. The candidate for orders must either be already married or must formally declare his intention of remaining celibate. I wonder how the Schismatics would argue that this somehow reflects to what St. Paul had advised that all would be like him especially among the clergy.This is why their is such an emphasis in Orthodoxy of the Angelic life a.k.a as the monastic life. Interesting how that works....
Although many others have treated this topic much more in depth, and I would highly recommend to read the works cited by Geremia (thanks for the souce) dealing with the topic. Hopefully no one remains unconvinced, if you do please cite where I was unclear or you would like for me to go more in depth. I stress this very much as their might be a possibility that the Vatican might soon approve of this pernicious error...
+Pax vobis+
-
Come one now, the Church would never have tolerated a practice in the Eastern Churches that was inherently incompatible with Apostolic Tradition ... just to "avoid schism" any more than the Church countenanced Henry VIII's "annulment" in order to prevent England from going into schism. Give me a break.
Celibacy as an "evangelical counsel" was certainly of Apostolic origin, but it doesn't mean it was ever mandatory. With all due respect to St. Jerome, when St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy about a bishop being the husband of one wife, it's just silly to claim that this referred to being married to the Church, for the next sentence goes on to state that if one cannot properly govern his own family, then how can he govern the Church?
Give me some time and I will answer later with regards to that. Yes, I can prove to you without a reasonable doubt that they did to avoid "schism." Also let me know of what you think of my previous response. Thanks for the chat, I am only singling you out because you happen to be defending that proposition. If it would have been anyone else I would be doing the same, hope you don't take it personal. God Bless and I hope you take seriously what everyone is saying.
+PAX+
-
They have been "talking" about this for as long as I can remember. I will believe it when I see them actually allow married priests.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
With all due respect to St. Jerome, when St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy about a bishop being the husband of one wife, it's just silly to claim that this referred to being married to the Church
St. Jerome, in his letter to Oceanus, considers as a "strained interpretation" that St. Paul is speaking of bishops married to their dioceses.
-
The whole question boils down to this: Should the clergy father biological children?
The answer is definitely: "No!" Look at the Protestant "ministers"' children. They often turn out rotten due to a lack (although not total absence) of a fatherly figure in their lives.
-
From the SSPX's response to Pietro Parolin's celibacy-questioning comments:
For now, we firmly maintain the discipline of celibacy. Some, rather pragmatically, say that that makes us lose hands (sic). If, hypothetically, Catholicism were to rethink the celibacy, I think that it would be for cultural reasons (like in the East), not as an absolute. For now, I am for maintaining the celibacy, with its advantages and disadvantages, because for ten centuries we have had more positive experiences than failures with it. It so happens that scandals are very visible. But the tradition is not worthless or invalid. Catholic priests chose celibacy progressively. Until 1100, some opted for it, others did not. The Eastern Churches followed the tradition of individual choice, whereas the West choice the opposite. It was a question of discipline, not of faith. It can change.
Strange he think celibacy has disadvantages…
Q: …Priestly celibacy is not…
A. It is not a dogma of the Church and can be disputed because it is a tradition of the Church.
Is it really a small-case "t" "tradition"?
See the commentary on 1983 Canon 277 (http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&lpg=PR19&ots=GJ5NIJFq6j&pg=PA356#v=onepage&q&f=false), which has footnotes quoting the Eastern Code, which apparently doesn't explicitly mention perpetual continence as the Western Code does.
The 1917 Code said:§1. Clerics constituted in major orders are prohibited from marriage and are bound by the obligation of observing chastity, so that those sinning against this are sicrilegious, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 214, §1 ["§ 1. Clericus qui metu gravi coactus ordinem sacrum recepit nec postea, remoto metu, eandem ordinationem ratam habuit saltem tacite per orainis exercitium, volens tamen per talem actum obligationibus clericalibus se subiicere ad statum laicalem, legitime probata coactione et ratihabitionis defectu, sententia iudicis redigatur sine ullis caelibatus ac horarum canonicarum obligationibus."].
§2. Minor clerics can enter marriage, but, unless the marriage was null because of inflicted force and fear, they drop from the clerical state by the law itself.
§3. A married man who, even in good faith, takes up major orders without apostolic dispensation is prohibited from exercising those orders.
(source of translation (http://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false))
The question is: Are these canons merely "disciplinary" or do they have basis in positive divine law, pertaining to the nature of Orders?
-
I guess my question regarding whether celibacy is more than discipline is this:
If it was more than discipline, then wouldn't have it been instituted from the very beginning? Was it? I thought it was something the Church put into place in the Middle Ages.
-
What's interesting is that the Secretary of State et al., by questioning celibacy, are actually going against the Vatican II docuмent Presbyterorum Ordinis (http://bit.ly/16nUpnQ) §16:
Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, commended by Christ the Lord [Matt. 19:12: "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's 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 receive, let him receive it."] and through the course of time as well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life.
-
Come one now, the Church would never have tolerated a practice in the Eastern Churches that was inherently incompatible with Apostolic Tradition ... just to "avoid schism" any more than the Church countenanced Henry VIII's "annulment" in order to prevent England from going into schism. Give me a break.
Celibacy as an "evangelical counsel" was certainly of Apostolic origin, but it doesn't mean it was ever mandatory. With all due respect to St. Jerome, when St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy about a bishop being the husband of one wife, it's just silly to claim that this referred to being married to the Church, for the next sentence goes on to state that if one cannot properly govern his own family, then how can he govern the Church?
Give me some time and I will answer later with regards to that. Yes, I can prove to you without a reasonable doubt that they did to avoid "schism." Also let me know of what you think of my previous response. Thanks for the chat, I am only singling you out because you happen to be defending that proposition. If it would have been anyone else I would be doing the same, hope you don't take it personal. God Bless and I hope you take seriously what everyone is saying.
+PAX+
"Odon Vallet, who can hardly be suspected of traditionalism, declared to MYTF1News: “In this matter, there is a real risk of schism and of divisions within the Church.”" (source (http://www.dici.org/en/news/marriage-for-priests-and-divorce-in-the-church/)).
-
If it was more than discipline, then wouldn't have it been instituted from the very beginning? Was it? I thought it was something the Church put into place in the Middle Ages.
No, perpetual continence (at least) has been of apostolic origins. See Card. Stickler's The Case for Clerical Celibacy.
-
Hopefully no one remains unconvinced, if you do please cite where I was unclear
"Unclear?" Fascinating that you would ask: Where the (expletive deleted) did all the text in red inside the "Quote" boxes come from? You seem to be abusing the straightforward formatting tools--easily used and understood--that CathInfo provides.
How's 'bout typing your original comments about the quoted text outside the "Quote" boxes that you're commenting on? 'T ain't rocket science.
Anyone whose postings in this topic are as lengthy as yours already are--which makes bailing out increasingly appealing with each additional line--really ought to make a special effort to make them as easy to read as possible. Which especially includes making it very clear who wrote what.
-
Just because celibacy as a recommendation has Apostolic origin does NOT mean that it was required.
[2] It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, [3] Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. [5] But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
To say that allowing married priests would be an argument for sedevacantism is just plain silly.
The Council of Nicea was not "a recommendation" it is a unanimous opinion of all the Eastern Father's with the consent of the Roman Pontiff and on top of that it is well known how none of the Apostles went back with their wives after having met the Lord and went into the ministry. It was an Ecuмenical Council and all of its Canons were approved by the Roman Church, I simply can't see how you think its just a "recommendation." In addition to that St. Jerome writes in his commentary along with some other Fathers of the Church, how being the husband of one wife is understood "married to the Church." It was the opinion of the Father's that a Bishop should not move into other Diocese's and that is what was meant by "one" wife. I don't think I have read all of the Father's on that particular verse but might serve well is to look at St. Thomas of Aquinas Catena Aurea as a good starter. There has been bloody wars over issues lesser then this, and yes this would prove without a doubt the Sedevacantist stance.
If priestly celibacy was just Ecclesiastical faith, in fact one of the most ANCIENT proposed teachings from the Church. Stemming back to the Apostles themselves, and formally defined at Nicea. It definitely falls under several different categories for theological censures, but lets take the one that is least harmful for your soul... Heresy...
Msgr. Caterchini Theological Notes (http://(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium. Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind. Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.):
(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
It is part of a Canon of the first Council of the Church, how is it not required? Please tell me whatever sophistry you might come up with that will defend a heretical opinion. I have already explained to you already, that the reason the Roman Church the mother and mistress of all Churches has authoritatively taught WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt that it is not disciplinary but to deny that would be a mortal sin against faith. There is a Novus Ordo "Cardinal" that wrote about this topic very well, I believe it was Fr. Stickler. I will later post his book as I don't have it scanned it might take me a while to quote the relevant parts of his book. Quite a masterpiece of a work I must say.
It is interesting how the Eastern Church believes that it can dissolve marriages, now this is not surprising to me because they already accepted heresy on the subject of priestly celibacy since they are both intimately connected. It is also interesting that even in the Eastern Church married priest are reduced to second class priest, the faithful generally go for spiritual direction and confession to the unmarried priest etc... That is the work of heretics and this was one of those big things that they were unwilling to budge on, so the Roman Church in its mercy permitted for the sake of their souls to have a very strict policy on married priest. It is well known that we generally discourage married priest, and that the % of married Eastern Rite priest are very few when compared % to the Orthodox. All of these things put together make it pretty clear that it was something that the Roman Church did out of Mercy and it was a concession to heretics.
Take the case of the Hussites particularly with receiving communion with both species, bread and wine. Now I just quoted to you that to deny this is Heresy against Ecclesiastical Faith. Despite that Rome permitted them to receive under both kinds because they would not budge on that one particular issue, so in order to prevent a GREATER schism it was permissible for the sake of their eternal souls to have special permission to do otherwise. This was also done at the Council of Florence with the Eastern's, this is something that is done especially when the root cause of the problem are a few propositions.
It is interesting to see how one heresy leads to many other's, because to deny ONE just one thing proposed by the Church leads to disaster: ...
Excellent jobs Thomistic Philos. and Geremia.
-
Hopefully no one remains unconvinced, if you do please cite where I was unclear
"Unclear?" Fascinating that you would ask: Where the (expletive deleted) did all the text in red inside the "Quote" boxes come from? You seem to be abusing the straightforward formatting tools--easily used and understood--that CathInfo provides.
How's 'bout typing your original comments about the quoted text outside the "Quote" boxes that you're commenting on? 'T ain't rocket science.
Anyone whose postings in this topic are as lengthy as yours already are--which makes bailing out increasingly appealing with each additional line--really ought to make a special effort to make them as easy to read as possible. Which especially includes making it very clear who wrote what.
Thanks for the comment, I did not realize how I butchered it by not making clear my comments outside of the quotes. I will take your advice into consideration. Appreciate the criticism, I will do my best to fix that in the future. God Bless!
-
I've never argued that celibacy is not a good thing and not necessary for perfection in the religious state. Nevertheless, as I said, the Church has always allowed it in the Eastern Rites. Consequently, the lifting of celibacy would NOT constitute any kind of argument against the legitimacy of a pope. If they can tolerate it for the Eastern Rites, then they can also tolerate it for the Roman Rite without losing their see and committing some kind of "heresy".
Similarly, with communion under both species, the Eastern Rites have always practiced it, and there's nothing inherently evil about it, the Protestant-era condemnations of the practice notwithstanding.
-
I've never argued that celibacy is not a good thing and not necessary for perfection in the religious state. Nevertheless, as I said, the Church has always allowed it in the Eastern Rites. Consequently, the lifting of celibacy would NOT constitute any kind of argument against the legitimacy of a pope. If they can tolerate it for the Eastern Rites, then they can also tolerate it for the Roman Rite without losing their see and committing some kind of "heresy".
Similarly, with communion under both species, the Eastern Rites have always practiced it, and there's nothing inherently evil about it, the Protestant-era condemnations of the practice notwithstanding.
If an Anglican convert that becomes a priest by special exception from the Holy See allowed to live the conjugal life, that is not for me to judge whether it was a good or bad decision. If that convert did not believe that the Universal celibacy does not apply, he would be a heretic. Likewise you are comparing apples and oranges, and quit talking double-speak. You either agree with the Roman Church, or you do not. You can't say like how the married priest movement, "How much they admire celibate priest." We know this is a pure con job to fool good Catholics into thinking that they still somehow are on the same side. Now I am not sure if you have heard of the schism of Photius and Celarus, both of them held communion under both kinds as necessary for the Roman Church + married priest, but despite these heretics, consistently the ecuмenical Councils of the canons of Holy Church have condemned as anathema sit such opinions:
934 Can. 1. If anyone says that each and every one of the faithful of Christ ought by a precept of God, or by necessity for salvation to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament: let him be anathema [cf. n. 930 ].
935 Can. 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to layman and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this: let him be anathema [cf. n.931 ].
936 Can. 3. If anyone denies that Christ whole and entire, who is the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received according to the institution of Christ Himself under both species: let him be anathema [cf. n. 930,932 ].
937 Can. 4. If anyone says that for small children, before they have attained the years of discretion, communion of the Eucharist is necessary: let him be anathema [cf. n.933 ].
Canon 4 is interesting because the Eastern Church gives communion to babies under both kinds. Now how is it that the Roman Church asserts that anyone who believes that this is absolutely necessary will be anathema sit?!
Seriously what part can't you get through your head, because there are exceptions somewhere, it does not imply that it is "optional" or "recommended, but even those who are given the exception they would be heretics for denying the Universal and constant teaching of the Church with regards to the Universal Church having celibacy as mandatory. Celibacy is not just a good "thing", it is MANDATORY. It is the prerogative of the Holy See to allow exceptions for certain people or groups (with an intent of not having them become schismatic). No it cannot be "tolerated" in the Western Rite period, cite me one SINGLE papal teaching that says so. Quit citing your opinion and start actually submitting your mind to the authority of the Church which has been as St. Vincent of Lerins, "(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally." Notice how it has NEVER been taught in the West in any official manner anything contrary to celibacy. Rome has always taught this as BINDING on the Church, just because there are dissenters does not make it right. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that the number of those who are saved are few because of schisms and heresies. The teaching of clerical celibacy was taught before even the Council of Nicea on some other local Synods in Spain and in different parts of Europe. Just because some local region accepted some error and it is tolerated for the sake of Schism for a particular group it would be a total break with tradition to apply this Universally. Remember the early Church was a catacomb Church and it did not have the same liberty until much later which is why it took so long to condemn certain heretical opinions.
If Bergoglio makes celibacy optional, then he is an anti-Pope (for that alone and nothing else). This is what can become dangerous from defending heretics because you will need to accept their errors in order to hold them as still Catholic. This is why so many in the Conciliar sect will be damned, because instead of being intellectually honest and remaining silent when they have no clue of what they are talking about, they speak up in defense of Assisi et al... I can keep quoting indefinitely papal teaching on this matter, good luck finding something defending your erroneous temerious position. The Pope when he used to take his Oath during his Coronation ceremony, promises to be held to the teachings of his predecessors.
Mirari Vos (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm#par11) says it clearly:
11. Now, however, We want you to rally to combat the abominable conspiracy against clerical celibacy. This conspiracy spreads daily and is promoted by profligate philosophers, some even from the clerical order. They have forgotten their person and office, and have been carried away by the enticements of pleasure. They have even dared to make repeated public demands to the princes for the abolition of that most holy discipline. But it is disgusting to dwell on these evil attempts at length. Rather, We ask that you strive with all your might to justify and to defend the law of clerical celibacy as prescribed by the sacred canons, against which the arrows of the lascivious are directed from every side.
Even Paul VI as bad as he was defended clerical celibacy, Bergoglio is making anti-Christ's look like champions of Orthodoxy...
-
Here's a very relevant passage from Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical Quo Graviora (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16quogr.htm) on the distinction between doctrine and discipline, which is also relevant in the light of Francis's La Civiltà Cattolica interview:
For many years there has been growing and spreading in this country the very false opinion, the result of the impious and absurd system of indifferentism, which holds that the Christian religion is capable of continually perfecting itself. And since the champions of this false opinion hesitate to apply this pretended perfectibility to the truths of faith, they do so to the external administration and discipline of the Church. And to give credit to their error they employ, for the most part not without inconsistency and fraud, the authority of Catholic theologians who, on occasion, establish this distinction between doctrine and discipline: that discipline is subject to change, doctrine remains always the same and is not subject to any modification. Once this is laid down, they state without any hesitation that on many points the discipline, the government, and the forms of external worship in use in the Church are no longer suitable to the character of our times, and that what is harmful to the progress and prosperity of the Catholic religion must be changed, (which is possible) without the teaching of faith and morals suffering any harm. Thus, under color of religious zeal and behind the mask of piety they introduce innovations, project reforms, devise a “regeneration” of the Church… Moreover, without realizing it, or pretending that they do not realize it, they are in direct contradiction to sound doctrine which they say they wish to reestablish and protect. For in fact, when they pretend that all the forms of the Church without distinction can be changed, are they not subjecting to this change those points of discipline which have their foundation in the divine law itself, which are joined to doctrines of faith by so close a bond that the rule of faith determines the rule of action?