Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[KnightofChrist]

all the Apostles were Jewish fishermen too, why don't we require all Apostles to be Jewish fishermen?

They are fishermen of men, that tradition and symbolism hasn't be thrown away, yet. And they are Catholic and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the faith of Abraham, Issac, Moses, etc etc, who were Jewish. So yes in a very big and tradition way Bishops are Jewish Fishermen like the Apostles. Edited September 12, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

:D of course, my point in my little snarky responses (for which I hope Apo didn't take any offense) was that all "change" isn't equivalent.  if the Pope or a council or a synod were to remove the filioque, for instance, you couldn't say that's just like when the concilium pushed through the liturgical reform, or when the versus populum position started.  all "change" does not equal innovation; and though we should of course reject antiquarianism that suggests we definitely should return to practices exactly as they were done at some time in the ancient church, there is nothing wrong with the Western Church learning from the first millenium Church, or from the Eastern Churches, and modeling some ways forward as means of restoring traditions even as they sometimes discard later traditions.  from Apo's position, it almost seems as if since we have been locked into mandatory celibacy for a millenium and therefore we're stuck with it forever else we risk destabilization.

 

the clerical discipline must always find a way to promote celibacy as the expression of the "eunuchs of the Kingdom of God" described in the scriptures, and I have suggested some ways I could see that being done if a married priesthood were to be brought in (the connection between monasteries and the episcopacy is one that I think would be highly beneficial to the Church).  that's the consideration I'm most concerned about... because any restoration of tradition where it has seemed to have been ruptured from will inherently not take the form of any kind of status quo stablization IMO, it will only take root if it's done in refreshing and revitalizing ways... any kind of widespread attempt to restore the 1950's will not, I think, take too strong a root... though the extraordinary rite is of course an essential aspect of the way forward.  of course I'm not suggesting allowing a married priesthood is some kind of fix, but I do think openness towards such a possibility is entirely within the realm of possibilities for those of us seeking to restore tradition in many aspects.

 

if I were in a position to make the decision, though, I'd of course be extremely wary of moving in that direction.  I imagine if the Vatican does decide to permit a married priesthood, though, as is entirely possible, many people here will find the perspectives I've been suggesting very useful.

[PhuturePriest]

In time, Rome will permit everything.

 

Will it permit murder so I can get rid of the annoying people in my life?
 

[PhuturePriest]

At the end of the day, guys, there's no way they are taking away Priestly celibacy. It's a trivial issue when there are tons of actual issues. Let's start teaching people about the Real Presence and explaining to them doctrines and beliefs of the Church. After those 75% of Catholics in America who don't go to Mass start going to Mass again, we'll talk about celibacy.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[PhuturePriest]

This attitude is precisely why the seminary I attended ruined so many good men. A few, somehow, only by the grace of God, have managed to become good priests in spite of this attitude that priests ought to be isolated from society, isolated from families, and isolated from the very people they are being called to serve.

 

I am not talking about some appearance of isolation. To be celibate without being isolated is not something people can just do without training, and I for one count the Church in the US as being flagrantly irresponsible for doing so little about it. If some folks in the Vatican think opening this question might fix this problem, I say by all means, let it be tried. Plenty of other things have been tried, I can assure you.

 

The only other man who I've ever seen complain about the formation of seminaries (And rightly so) as much as you do is Michael Voris. Just thought I'd share that with you. :P

[PhuturePriest]

I wonder whether the rampant disbelief in the Transubstantiation or use of contraception will make its way to the USCCB's annual meeting this year.

 

If they don't, they will again be turning a blind eye to two very big issues.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Apotheoun]

It is important to note that Eastern Orthodox Churches in Western countries are also suffering from a priest shortage. The only places where large numbers of Orthodox priestly ordinations have occurred is in the former Soviet Union and the East Block countries.

[Apotheoun]

In time, Rome will permit everything.

That does appear to be the way that Rome has approached the liturgical crisis of the past forty years (e.g., parishes contrary to Apostolic Tradition used female altar boys, and so Rome eventually permitted the practice, people started receiving communion on the hand contrary to Roman Catholic custom and Rome eventually gave an indult permitting the practice). It does seem as though Rome has a tendency to turn liturgical abuses into standardized practice. My Orthodox friends are mystified by this process of approved liturgical disintegration.

[Apotheoun]

not quite sure what you're saying there Apteka, is Rome supposed to think all the abberations from the apostolic spirit of the liturgy are 'spirit inspired' just because they're happening?  

I thought Apteka was talking about the wholesale replacement of the ancient Roman liturgy with the modern artificial reconstruction created by the Consilium in the late 1960s.

 

The rule of prayer is the rule of belief, and so if you arbitrarily replace the ancient prayer of the Church with a modern fabrication you necessarily alter the faith of the Church. Is it any wonder that belief in the real presence has collapsed?

Edited September 12, 2013 by Apotheoun

[havok579257]

Will it permit murder so I can get rid of the annoying people in my life?
 

 

 

he said everything so that must include murder, heresy, and everything else.  I mean why else make such a truthful statement.

[Apotheoun]

j. . .  if the Pope or a council or a synod were to remove the filioque, for instance, you couldn't say that's just like when the concilium pushed through the liturgical reform, or when the versus populum position started.  all "change" does not equal innovation; and though we should of course reject antiquarianism that suggests we definitely should return to practices exactly as they were done at some time in the ancient church, there is nothing wrong with the Western Church learning from the first millenium Church, or from the Eastern Churches, and modeling some ways forward as means of restoring traditions even as they sometimes discard later traditions.  from Apo's position, it almost seems as if since we have been locked into mandatory celibacy for a millenium and therefore we're stuck with it forever else we risk destabilization.

Of course the filioque was an innovation only accepted into the creed at Rome in the early 11th century.

 

Are you saying that prayer facing the people is not an innovation? Perhaps I am misunderstanding that part of your post, because I assure you that it is an innovation for the priest to pray facing the people. The Eastward orientation in pray is - according to the Church Fathers - an Apostolic Tradition.

 

Al, you know how much I dislike the filioque, so what I am about to say is going to surprise you: I do not think that the Roman Church - at least for the foreseeable future - should remove the filioque from its recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed because I think it would do more harm to the already damaged liturgical life of the Latin Rite.

[KnightofChrist]

:D of course, my point in my little snarky responses (for which I hope Apo didn't take any offense) was that all "change" isn't equivalent.  if the Pope or a council or a synod were to remove the filioque, for instance, you couldn't say that's just like when the concilium pushed through the liturgical reform, or when the versus populum position started.  all "change" does not equal innovation; and though we should of course reject antiquarianism that suggests we definitely should return to practices exactly as they were done at some time in the ancient church, there is nothing wrong with the Western Church learning from the first millenium Church, or from the Eastern Churches, and modeling some ways forward as means of restoring traditions even as they sometimes discard later traditions.  from Apo's position, it almost seems as if since we have been locked into mandatory celibacy for a millenium and therefore we're stuck with it forever else we risk destabilization.
 
the clerical discipline must always find a way to promote celibacy as the expression of the "eunuchs of the Kingdom of God" described in the scriptures, and I have suggested some ways I could see that being done if a married priesthood were to be brought in (the connection between monasteries and the episcopacy is one that I think would be highly beneficial to the Church).  that's the consideration I'm most concerned about... because any restoration of tradition where it has seemed to have been ruptured from will inherently not take the form of any kind of status quo stablization IMO, it will only take root if it's done in refreshing and revitalizing ways... any kind of widespread attempt to restore the 1950's will not, I think, take too strong a root... though the extraordinary rite is of course an essential aspect of the way forward.  of course I'm not suggesting allowing a married priesthood is some kind of fix, but I do think openness towards such a possibility is entirely within the realm of possibilities for those of us seeking to restore tradition in many aspects.
 
if I were in a position to make the decision, though, I'd of course be extremely wary of moving in that direction.  I imagine if the Vatican does decide to permit a married priesthood, though, as is entirely possible, many people here will find the perspectives I've been suggesting very useful.

I still believe it is wrong and maybe even a little disingenuous to say one cannot compare this potential change with priestly celibacy to the changes that came with and after the Second Vatican Council. I understand the point that changes to the liturgy would differ from non-liturgical changes. But the priest is deeply connected to the liturgy, in the West his celibacy has become very interconnected to his nature and identity as a priest, and since any change to this identity would have large and profound effects on the Church, changes that will ripple throughout the whole world and throughout even perhaps the ages, just like the changes in the liturgy. It is therefor rather reasonable to compare the changes in the liturgy to this potential change.

I think Apo brings up a very reasonable and good argument against this change by comparing it to the changes in the West over the last 50 or so years. For the past 50 years the Church in the West has been in a constant state of flux, the changes have not been at all limited to the liturgy, but nearly ever aspect of the Church in the West has been changed, updated, or modernized in some manner, some more abrupt than others. This would be yet more profound change, which I agree with Apo we do not need and would likely find would not help but harm. Now whether or not everyone agrees or not that this constant change and state of flux is to blame for all the crises of faith in the Church today is for another debate. But I believe there is a very good argument that the state of flux has harmed the Church in the West more than it has helped it.

Going back to the identity of the priest, I do believe this could cause more crises for priests and their identity as priests. Some times it feels to me as if the priesthood is dissolving into the laity. The laity have taken on more and more roles that once belonged only to the priest. And many priests have basically tried become more like laity than priests, they don't dress like priests, or act like priests. But instead dress and act like members of the laity. Allowing priests to marry in this environment I think could have the profound negative effect of increasing this dissolving of the priesthood into the laity.

And for the priest who wants to be a priest and who is loyal to and loves his vows of celibacy what effects will this have on him? Even if as you suggest we could have it both ways, priests with vows of celibacy and others who do not make such vows, I still think it would cause an identity crisis for some priests who've made their vows of celibacy to God already. Some may feel that it would cheapen their vow, or lessen it's value.

Anyway I just don't think we could throw away in part or in whole the treasure and tradition of priestly celibacy that has stood for nearly a thousand years, that the Church has defended and advocated tooth and nail for just as long with profound negative effects. Edited September 12, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

Why are your Orthodox friends surprised? Rome lost the faith a long time ago.

Because they tend to see Rome - mistakenly - as conservative. In the past Rome has seemed to be rather unmoving - especially on liturgical issues - but at least since the close of the Second Vatican Council that has not been true. Perhaps the creation of a new liturgy through a practice of scholarly archeologism has made anything possible in the liturgical life of the Roman Church (e.g., turning Jewish table prayers into offertory prayers in the modern Roman Rite).

[Apotheoun]

Priestly discipline is intimately connected to the liturgy. Are Roman Catholics willing to abandon the practice of daily Eucharistic celebrations? Periodic continence (i.e., the marital fast) is a part of the Tradition of having married priests. Is Rome going to institute a married clergy on the fly by creating an all new and unheard of form of this practice? That does seem to be the Roman Catholic approach of the present time, an approach that mirrors the way that the Protestant Reformers went about "reforming" the Churches that came under their control in the early and mid 16th century.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Apropos:

 

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/discussing-the-future-of-celibacy-requires-understanding-the-value-of-continence/

 

Discussing the future of celibacy requires understanding the value of continence

September 12, 2013

Every time a ranking prelate so much as hiccups while making a comment on celibacy, the hive starts buzzing about a potential change in clerical discipline regarding marriage. I think that kind of instant speculation is unfair to the hundreds of thousands of clergy living in celibacy and to the thousands of others seriously discerning that life, but hiccups are gonna happen and we just have to deal with them.

To the degree that some recent Roman provisions inconsistent with a celibate clergy, as opposed to steady Roman rhetoric in support of it, have contributed to confusion-approaching-consternation among those who already live, or who are discerning, this “special gift of God” (c. 277 § 1, more about that here), then some critical self-examination seems in order even at high levels. Step One might be something like, No more comments requiring theological precision for a proper understanding to be made before reporters unable, or unwilling, to make and communicate those precisions.

But ultimately, what must be appreciated is this: the clerical celibacyissue cannot be adequately addressed until, among other things, the more fundamental question of clerical (diaconal, to be sure, but even more crucially, sacerdotal) continence is forthrightly addressed. Folks who persist in treating celibacy questions as identical with continence questions (some to the point of not even acknowledging that continence questions exist) do so, I suggest, in plain disregard of the historical, canonical, and sacramental evidence to the contrary. More about thathere.

Bottom line: Some kinds of questions can be tabled pending further study, but the more that resolutions to derivative issues depend on the answers found to those prior questions, the more urgent becomes the need to face those fundamental questions directly. Understanding the value of continence is crucial to assessing the future of celibacy.

 

[KnightofChrist]

Anyway I just don't think we could throw away in part or in whole the treasure and tradition of priestly celibacy that has stood for nearly a thousand years, that the Church has defended and advocated tooth and nail for just as long without profound negative effects.

 

That should have been without, not with, but hopefully everyone understood that anyway. As it would make no sense otherwise.

[havok579257]

It's claimed that when the Virgin appeared in La Salette she gave a secret revelation, namely, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of Antichrist." Many efforts have been made to suggest this is a spurious invention, but in light of all that has  happened, one can really wonder.

 

 

yep and the protestant church(well one of the million that there are) will hold the true faith.  suuureee

[StMichael]

Appears to me that the Holy Spirit is telling Pope Francis a whole slew of things that seem to be leading to another council. Or everyone has lost their minds.

 

A Priest is to be devoted to God. A Priest is to act as a shepherd to God's flock. A Priest cannot do this in totality if he has a wife and kids. One of the reasons why this came to be was because men would become Priests and the bequeath the wealth of the parish to his family as well as many others.

[Aloysius]

I believe I have been quite misinterpreted, probably because I took what Atpeka was taking to be the exact opposite... ambiguous rumblings of criticism are confusing sometimes, it really looked to me like you were saying the Bishops should be endorsing innovations as "spirit inspired".  anyone who knows me knows I am very much against the versus populum position.  as some people on this thread don't seem to know me, it should suffice to point out that when I do attend the Roman Rite, it tends to be the Extraordinary Form.

 

the filioque example was just a way to point out the difference between different things that might be called "changes".  I'm not saying that it should be done, but I am saying that "oh no things have been so shifty in these decades that we can't do anything that changes anything that's been done in the last millenium" is not a valid model, and it's not at all the correct traditional response.

 

much of what everyone has said here I don't feel the need to respond to at all, as it is totally irrelevant to the issue, it's just a bunch of complaining about the current state of the Church which is pretty counterproductive and boring... it almost turned into one of those stupid picture threads of all the worst masses so we can all pile on our complaints, luckily we didn't get to the clown or puppet masses... totally irrelevant to the issue.  let's all be careful not to fall into C vs. C bickering, btw.

 

if you choose to associate the discipline of clerical celibacy with all of these other changes, that's your business, but it's going to just make things more difficult if the discipline of clerical celibacy is relaxed (something that is indeed quite possible under the papacy of Pope Francis, and to suggest otherwise is to be like those who thought something like Summorum Pontificum or the Anglican Ordinariate would never be possible)... it's not an Apostolic tradition, and there are plenty of good ecclesial models that include married priesthoods.  if you want to stick your feet in the mud and insist that the only way to revive tradition is to get everything back to pre-Vatican II 1950's status quo, well, enjoy your nice little niche subculture and I wish you well, but that's not going to be the way the Church recovers its traditions in my opinion.

[KnightofChrist]

ah I stand corrected on that particular point.

 

I doubt changing the current practice would actually cause any new divisions, though perhaps the SSPX might become further entrenched in their situation.

 

either way none of this will be decided by us, which is why I prefer to offer the ways we should interpret such disciplinary changes rather than rail against them as 'just another change'--because I don't think it would be 'just another change'... maybe there are some reasons that might make its realization in a traditional context difficult, but the idea of married priests in the West is not, in and of itself, a bad idea.

 

Phatmass is like a microcosm of the Church, many of the issues we talk about and effect us effect the whole of the Church, the divisions here are seen throughout the Church. This issue has caused division here and it is certain to cause division throughout the Church. Honestly I cannot believe you are being so intellectually dishonest about something that is clear. If there is a profound change (or whatever word you wish to use) to the celibacy of priests it will cause confusion and division within the Church.