www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Married Popes

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?

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: Celibacy is a Latin Church discipline that can be removed by the Pope.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Me, too, John. Me, too.

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.