Author Topic: How to tell if you are called to marriage or celibacy (Read 2868 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2016, 11:58:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

What is all this nonsense lately on CathInfo about marriage not being a vocation? Any state in life can be a vocation. Vocation isn't necessarily synonymous with religious vocation. Certainly, subjectively, not everyone pursues marriage as if it were a vocation, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't objectively call some people to marriage as a vocation.

That would be my "nonsense", which I was taught at the Seminary by Fr. Doran.

Wherever he got this doctrine, it probably pre-dated Pope Pius XII (for many Sedevacantists on CathInfo, the most recent Pope there was!)

It could have been a "hang up" or "opinion" of his, in which case I'd be passing on that hang up or opinion. But generally speaking I only put my "2 cents worth" when they're worth a heck of a lot more than 2 cents. What I'm saying is, when I speak authoritatively about something it's because I'm speaking with Church teaching behind me. I don't place much value on my own (or anyone else's) opinion. Opinions are too fallible and useless. I try to stick to objective truth, facts, and Church Doctrine as much as possible.

When I give my opinion, usually I make that clear. "I think...", "In my opinion...", "It seems to me that..." or something like that.

Fr. Doran complained about the lack of professionals within Catholic Tradition (i.e., every professional he met had become a professional BEFORE he converted to Traditional Catholicism), the tendency for young men to not have any ambition.

He also preached a lot about how feeding your 2 year old cheerios during Mass to keep him quiet is teaching him, "Does your body ask you for something? Here, let's make sure and satisfy it. You certainly can't tell your body No or make your body WAIT for a whole HOUR!" which leads to fornication and immorality later on in life. Fr. Doran was big on fasting.

He also talked about the classic "layman with an unfulfilled vocation" who will never rest because he should have become a priest or religious, but didn't. He described this layman in detail -- I can't remember the exact details. I think he had a secret disdain for "laymen" (i.e., he looked down on them) now that I think about it. It might have been part of his whole power trip experience (see, "Story of a Seminarian - Life as a Seminarian is like the Movie Platoon"). After all, how do you manipulate and exercise a power trip over your seminarians, unless you paint "the lay life" and "life with an unfulfilled vocation" as something horrible? That would force you to stay in the Seminary.

Anyhow, despite Fr. Doran's "issues" (exercising sadistic power trips over seminarians), I can't just dismiss everything I was taught by him, since he was something of an intellectual and certainly read a lot of books.

Geremia · « **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2016, 12:09:21 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Fr. Doran complained about the lack of professionals within Catholic Tradition (i.e., every professional he met had become a professional BEFORE he converted to Traditional Catholicism), the tendency for young men to not have any ambition.

Ambition can be sinful / prideful.

Quote from: Matthew

He also talked about the classic "layman with an unfulfilled vocation" who will never rest because he should have become a priest or religious, but didn't. He described this layman in detail -- I can't remember the exact details. I think he had a secret disdain for "laymen" (i.e., he looked down on them) now that I think about it. It might have been part of his whole power trip experience (see, "Story of a Seminarian - Life as a Seminarian is like the Movie Platoon"). After all, how do you manipulate and exercise a power trip over your seminarians, unless you paint "the lay life" and "life with an unfulfilled vocation" as something horrible? That would force you to stay in the Seminary.

It's sounds like he's just practically applying the teaching of the Council of Trent that the celibate state is higher than that of marriage.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2016, 12:22:56 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Talk to your parents and your priest.

The general rule is that a person who is called to religious life does not talk about it with his parents, because carnal attachments often blind their judgement in these matters, leading some parents to hinder the vocations of their children. A wise priest or lay friend should be sought for advice. Also, when a person desires such a state of life, there being no obstacles which prevent him from licitly adopting it, and is willing to commit himself to its obligations, then the person can be certain that he is called, because these dispositions can not come from the flesh, which opposes selfsacrifice, nor from the devil, who is horrified at the very thought of the consecrated state.

Someone said that celibacy is not a vocation. This is wrong; it is one of the core aspects of religious life, and some people are called to live celibate lives in the world through a private vow of perfect chastity. Virginity is a very lofty state, because whereas Matrimony makes men resemble animals more closely, virginity makes their lives more like those of the Angels. It is a pearl more precious than gold, and its happiness is hidden from those who are not called to possess it.

It is not a good idea to turn to internetfora for advice on vocational discernment. A canonically legitimate priest well versed in the principles of moral theology should be contacted.

Matthew · « **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2016, 01:25:02 PM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

It is not a good idea to turn to internetfora for advice on vocational discernment. A canonically legitimate priest well versed in the principles of moral theology should be contacted.

I don't know what you mean by "canonically legitimate", and frankly it doesn't matter.

If you mean a priest well versed in Church doctrine, Moral theology, Canon Law -- in short, properly trained at a Traditional seminary -- then I heartily agree.

The reality is that a wise Catholic would seek the advise of a good, faithful, wise canonically IRREGULAR priest holding to Tradition rather than some compromised priest who has earned the respect and approval of Apostate Rome.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2016, 02:12:53 PM »

Matthew,

A "wise, canonically irregular priest" is an oxymoron, unless he is living such a life in good faith. I am aware that, this being an SSPX forum, this truth is not very popular here, but it is a truth nonetheless.

And being a canonically regular priest is not synonymous to accepting the Bugninian Liturgy and the modern errors being spread in the form of papal docuмents. Sure, if you are a priest of the FSSP who rejects these things, you might be inclined to keep some kind of a low profile, so as not to provoke having your clerical functions suspended. But that does not mean that such a one betrays the cause of orthodoxy and genuine liturgical practice. Despite the fact that we live in the age of blogging, Twitter and Facebook, we really do not know that much about internal ecclesiastical politics, and priests who might be accused by outsiders of being too silent, might be doing more for the cause of genuine resistance to the ecclesiastical revolution than what the world beholds.

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** May 16, 2016, 02:41:42 PM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

A "wise, canonically irregular priest" is an oxymoron, unless he is living such a life in good faith.

No it is not. "A wise priest approved by Modernist Rome" is an absolute oxymoron; it doesn't exist. Either you are approved by Modernist Rome, or you are wise. There might be some ignorant priests who are nevertheless of good will, but they still aren't wise. They are ignorant.

I am aware that, this being an SSPX forum, this truth is not very popular here, but it is a truth nonetheless.

Or perhaps your "truth" isn't so true at all. The only defense you have is the one I often put forward: that God hasn't revealed to anyone the best manner of dealing with this Crisis. Maybe it's true that slinking in the rear guard, having your cake and eating it too, letting the SSPX win you your Latin Mass and then having your comfortable "approved by Rome" Latin Mass is the best place for a fervent, fearless saint to be in 2016. But everything I know says that is shameful. Traditionally, it's the saints, the fighters, the front line troops that are the heroes, not the ones who heroically keep their heads down and try to have it both ways (hiding behind the SSPX, letting them take all the casualties, and doing nothing to defend them). I think that is dishonorable and shameful, and I have a hard time thinking that God would think otherwise.

If I'm wrong about this, I have a lot to learn about heroism, generosity, fortitude, and I need to forget everything I learned from hundreds of Lives of the Saints.

Maybe I missed a saint. Perhaps you could fill me in. Give me just ONE example of a saint who would have joined the FSSP today rather than a more fervent, compromise-less group.

And being a canonically regular priest is not synonymous to accepting the Bugninian Liturgy and the modern errors being spread in the form of papal docuмents.

Yes, there is a time when silence implies consent. Silence is not always neutral, much less a virtue. There are situations where silence/inaction is actually sinful.

Sure, if you are a priest of the FSSP who rejects these things, you might be inclined to keep some kind of a low profile, so as not to provoke having your clerical functions suspended. But that does not mean that such a one betrays the cause of orthodoxy and genuine liturgical practice.

Actually, yes it does. The bad guys in the Vatican aren't the only ones helping the devil's cause. All the good men who silently do nothing, out of cowardice, self-interest, or any other motive are equally necessary to bring about the destruction in the Church we see today.

Despite the fact that we live in the age of blogging, Twitter and Facebook, we really do not know that much about internal ecclesiastical politics, and priests who might be accused by outsiders of being too silent, might be doing more for the cause of genuine resistance to the ecclesiastical revolution than what the world beholds.

We know plenty. The Freemasons have taken over the Vatican. The proof is all around us. There is no "internal resistance" as you claim. You might as well try to justify the behavior and words of Pope Francis. "Maybe he's a prisoner of the Vatican." Ridiculous! If you're not resisting, it's hard to say you're part of any kind of resistance. If you're not gathering with Our Lord, you are scattering. Period.

The same is claimed for some priests who are still (as of May 2016) part of the neo-SSPX. Some say, "I want to wait until God's will is manifest by my superiors kicking me out." Which sounds good on paper, but what are these priests doing to get kicked out? Nothing? How can they claim to be fighting the good fight? If they are keeping their heads down, they are pusillanimous and fearful, not fearless warriors for Christ that they should be. They received great graces at Ordination, and they are linked to Jesus Christ in a very special way by the indelible character imprinted on their soul. They should be willing to go even to death for love of the Catholic Church and the Truth -- just like their Master.

I condemn and execrate all that I have written on this forum against faith and morals.

I, on the other hand, do no such thing. I took the superior path of not saying anything against faith and morals to begin with.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #21 on:** May 16, 2016, 03:13:38 PM »

Matthew,

I am not speaking about priests who actually spread erroneous doctrine and practice, like the Holy Father himself is doing. I am speaking of priests who do the opposite, who preach orthodox sermons, and who are actually building up resistance within the Church, prudently keeping a low profile. You flatly deny that internal resistance exists, but this merely proves your lack of interest in whatever takes place within canonical structures. You like a very simplistic view of things, and you condemn a great number of clerics operating within the Church without actually talking to them and inquiring about their position. Your view means the complete annihilation of the Church, and that there is no salvation within her, which contradicts the dogma that this salvation is to be found solely within her.

There are moments and situations where silence is a sin, but care must be taken not to blur the truth about what these moments and situations are. I do not speak about pusillanimous priests, but priests who are gentle as doves and wise as serpents. If you want to know the position of a cleric, and this position is not displayed on the internet or some other media-outlet, then you ask the priest about it, instead of condemning him without basis.