0 members (),
706
guests, and
89
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81 |
Could someone with a rich understanding of history help me out with something? I have read something posted in this forum stating that 38 Popes have been married inclucing Peter. Assuming Infallibility is put forth by the Papacy, wouldn't their examples mean it is O.K. for a priest, bishop, or Pope to be married? This is confusing me. And if Jesus preferred celibate men, why call Peter? I know Paul says it is better to be celibate but surely his words do not supercede Christ's example?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,687 Likes: 8
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,687 Likes: 8 |
Infallibility only applies to the teaching of Doctrine and isn't application to this question. Yes priests, popes, deacons were at one time married. Bishops were to be celibate in both East and West after the Council. 325 - Council of Nicae declared priests cannot marry after ordination. 692 - Quinisext Council (accepted by the East, rejected by the West). Bishops should not live with their wives, but in celibacy. (West) 1074 - Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy Married men stopped being ordained in the West after monetary scandals involving giving Church property to their children. From Wiki: Rules on celibacy differ between different religious traditions and churches:
* In Latin-Rite (Western) Catholic churches, married men may (since the time of the Second Vatican Council in 1965) be ordained deacons, but may not be ordained priests or bishops, nor may one marry after ordination. Since the Second Vatican Council, exceptions may be allowed for married Protestant priests or ministers who convert to Catholicism and wish to become priests in the Catholic Church, provided their wives consent (Catholics consider Protestant ordinations invalid, while recognizing Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ordinations as valid). In some cases, laicized Catholic priests are allowed to marry by special dispensation. Additionally, dispensations can be granted for deacons whose wives have died to marry a second time. Historically, churchmen who were the last living members of a noble house were permitted to marry so that the house might live on; with noble houses no longer important, this practice is de facto abolished. * In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (which are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained deacons or priests, but may not be ordained bishops, and one may not marry after ordination. The Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East follow the same rules that hold in the Eastern Orthodox Church. While some incorrectly believe all Orthodox bishops must be monks, in fact, according to church law, they simply may no longer be living with their wives if they are to be consecrated to the episcopacy. (The canons stipulate that they must also see to their wives' maintenance, for example Canon 12 of the Quinisext Council.) Typically, the wife of such a man will take up the monastic life herself, though this also is not required. There are many Orthodox bishops currently serving who have never been tonsured (formally initiated) to monastic orders. There are also many who are tonsured monastics but have never formally lived the monastic life. Further, a number of bishops are widowers, but because clergy cannot remarry after ordination, such a man must remain celibate after the death of his wife. Celibacy is a Latin Church discipline that can be removed by the Pope.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81 |
Thank you for shedding some light on this. I am just wondering why the Holy Spirit would reveal hundreds of years later that clergy should be celibate when Jesus could have just cleared this up from day 1? The question of infalibility would come up because these were rules issued by councils, aren't those infallible?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109 |
Catholics are ordinarily very badly taught about the doctrine of infallibility. There are those who think every time a Pope sneezes, it's infallible. There are those who think every jot and tittle of an Ecumenical Council is infallible. The truth is somewhere in between. There are NO Councils which are infallible in the sense that everything they did is infallible. Every Council has things dogmatic and things disciplinary. It is wise to distinguish between them. Popes are infallible ONLY under certain and very carefully defined conditions - you should be able to find those in the CCC. But one also should be careful not to run to the other extreme and conclude that "if it isn't clearly infallible, I can do what I want." Not so, McGee, not so. 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81 |
I need to read more on infallibility. Is there any type of infallibility assigned to Orthodox Patriarchs? Also, if a married man is called to a priestly vocation in the Catholic Church, is it bogus because the Holy Spirit would not blatently contradict Church rules? But back to celibacy, the Ruthenian church has the ability to ordain married men and they do not exercise this but yet they are crying for vocations. The fact that they are not utilizing their potential is their own demise.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109 |
John, you'll do well. You have a proper attitude, even if your factual base is somewhat off. Begin your reading with the documents of the Church - may I suggest the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church). Don't bother just yet with the decrees of Vatican I, or of Pope Pius IX. There's plenty of time for that. For now, the CCC will do nicely. Once there is a background of some sort for you, then discussions will be fruitful........keep it up. These are vital questions you've raised, and need to be dealt with clearly and forthrightly. Your instincts have done justice to the gravity of the issue.
Staro
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81 |
Staro, thank you for the guidance but I fear that no matter how much reading I do, I will NEVER understand why the Ruthenian church refuses to ordain married men. I do understand about the Bishops and Popes but Priests? I have read the Light for Life series, which is an Eastern Catechism. I am not too keen on western style Aristotelean definitions and tittles. My catechism is the Liturgy.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 31
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 31 |
Originally posted by johnofthe3barcross: Staro, thank you for the guidance but I fear that no matter how much reading I do, I will NEVER understand why the Ruthenian church refuses to ordain married men. I do understand about the Bishops and Popes but Priests? I have read the Light for Life series, which is an Eastern Catechism. I am not too keen on western style Aristotelean definitions and tittles. My catechism is the Liturgy. Well I'll tell you why: the Archbishop is a Latin sympathist!!!!!!!!!And also Kudos for you!!!! If you are Catholic, you have to sleep with the CCC under your pillow. Who cares if the easterners do things differently, the CCC is supreme! And about the 38 Popes, that was me, and it was 39. I see you are Ruthenian, so am I; shame isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109 |
That's OK, John. Most of the reasons the Eastern bishops in America (which is where the problem resides) refuse to ordain married men for "pragmatic" reasons that have little if anything to do with dogma. Much of that is financial. Some is still the fear of offending Roman bishops. And some is simply inertia.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81 |
Oh my Acolytejim, I did not mean that I regret being Ruthenian in any way whatsoever. I just meant that I do not understand their reasoning. Even if the ArchBishop does not ordain married men, I still accept it irregardless if I understand it. I just can't wait until the Ukrainians put out their Cathechism, it will be of an eastern slant and I will surely read and use that one. Staro, I agree that it is mostly practical reasons for not ordaining married men, I just wish this would change soon.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
At the risk of sounding like a broken record. The Latins Bishops dont care what Eastern Rite Catholics do regaring celebacy. Most seem to be vaguely aware that Eastern Rites have married men ordained to the priesthood. The UGCC and Melchite Bishops while attending the Australian Episcopal Conference that meets twice a year in Sydney, had a discussion on this topic with the rest of the hierarchy. They expained that they ahd been told that the other bishops were against them having married clergy and because of them they could not have married priests.
Well....the latins made it very clear that they preferred that all th Eastern Rite people followed their Rite faithfully and that includes if the bishops wanted to ordain married men that so be it. They were taken aback that 'they' were the reason neither the UGCC or Melchites ordained only celebates. The Nuncio tried to get involved for about 5 seconds but the Latin bishops (from the Cardinal down) made it very clear he did not have their support at all if he was going to start soemthing in Rome.
We had married priests ordained o'seas at first and now such ordinations here are the norm. They are not a big deal, curtains have not faded, cows are still milking, Latins could not care less. Yes there is an issue of the families but with common sense and good planning these things are not an issue for us. I know the Parish I attend in Perth (West Aust.) have already worked out how to house a married priest. The have decided that the SSMI can move out and their house be the Priest's house and the sister can move into the current Priest's residence.
The Latin Bishops are very helpfull in this country to the Eastern Rite people and can't do enough. Paul Kabay's recent postings back that up. I have heard similar about USA Latin bishops, so I suspect the Latin Rite excuse does not hold up to the light of day. The problem is completely with the 4x Bishops. At least one has thankfully broken ranks. The litmus test for me is the lack of the klobuk in the pics and still wearing fake omphorions 40 yrs after Vat II. Some see those as superficial but I read it as the tip of a Latinised iceberg with lots more of the same under the waterline.
|
|
|
|
|