Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[KnightofChrist]

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.

 

Sounds like a copout to me and a easy way to dismiss and marginalize those whom you don't agree with.
 

[Aloysius]

I'd have pretty much zero sympathy for anyone who chose to sow division and confusion over the issue if the Vatican were to relax the discipline on clerical celibacy.  which is why I feel it is so deeply important that people understand the traditional dimensions of a potential married priesthood in case it were to be done.  what would you do if the Vatican were to relax the discipline?  would you be involved in any division or confusion?  would you disrespect anyone who was a married priest in the Roman Church?

 

it's not a copout, it's a refusal to discuss an unrelated issue.  we shouldn't do a because x, y, and z have happened since Vatican II... that's the real copout, when you take a discussion on priestly celibacy and start complaining about every liturgical grievance you have.

[KnightofChrist]

I'd have pretty much zero sympathy for anyone who chose to sow division and confusion over the issue if the Vatican were to relax the discipline on clerical celibacy.  which is why I feel it is so deeply important that people understand the traditional dimensions of a potential married priesthood in case it were to be done.  what would you do if the Vatican were to relax the discipline?  would you be involved in any division or confusion?  would you disrespect anyone who was a married priest in the Roman Church?

 
I would never disrespect a Priest. I simply pointed out that it is unreasonable for you to suggest it would not cause division within the Church, when it is clear that it would do just that. Just as it is doing here.
 

it's not a copout, it's a refusal to discuss an unrelated issue.  we shouldn't do a because x, y, and z have happened since Vatican II... that's the real copout, when you take a discussion on priestly celibacy and start complaining about every liturgical grievance you have.

I still think you're being a bit lazy and rude (aka snarky) by dismissing people and their arguments the way you did when they go to the trouble to respond to you without dismissing you out of hand or marginalizing you or your arguments. I believe as I stated earlier a comparison can be made between this potential change and those that came after the Second Vatican Council. I also believe the other points I brought up are worthy of a reply. But if you do not wish to show that respect then so be it. I say good day!

God Bless Edited September 12, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

I don't really have many disagreements with your post, though, not enough to respond to it, anyway... my comment wasn't directed at you in particular... I addressed the only aspect I have any serious disagreement over.

 

hope I haven't rustled anyone's jimmies too much.  :cyclops:

[KnightofChrist]

No worries.

[Norseman82]

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

 

 

Not ALL the apostles....St. Matthew was a tax coillector.

[havok579257]

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.

I would disagree since saint peter had a wife and I dont think you would say he didnt fullfuill his duties to the fullist. Also many priests in the past were married before the discipline was put in place and I doubt your saying those priest, some of them saints did not fullfill their duties to the fullist.

[PhuturePriest]

An informative link by Jimmy Akin on this interview that shows the Papal Nuncio wasn't advocating the revocation of Priestly celibacy one iota: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-pope-francis-about-to-eliminate-celibacy-9-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz2ejk2bAtK

[Apotheoun]

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.

I'm certainly not against married priesthood, but I do think that Rome has been changing things without good reasons for doing so, and changing the discipline of priestly celibacy at this point in time (i.e., in hyper-sexualized Western societies) does not seem wise. As far as the Anglican practice of married clergy is concerned, it is a Protestant innovation, because there is no sense within the Anglican communion (or by extension - at least to my knowledge) or within the Anglican Ordinariate that liturgical continence is required of married priests (and deacons). I hear nothing about the marital fast among Anglicans, and I actually doubt that many of them have even heard of the practice. I hope Rome does not adopt the Anglican approach as its own. By the way, the constant references to the 1950s are non-sensical, because I do not think that anyone is idolizing that period in Roman Catholic history (at least I am not).

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

A bit of speculation makes me think that the current Anglican ordinariate situation of married clergy is a minor quirk of the whole arrangement, which will quietly die out with this current first generation of former Anglican clergy. They may keep a rite with Anglo-Catholic features and they may build new churches in a rather nice Anglican style, but I doubt that new clergy will be permitted to marry.

[KnightofChrist]

By the way, the constant references to the 1950s are non-sensical, because I do not think that anyone is idolizing that period in Roman Catholic history (at least I am not).

 

Growing up I can remember protestants using very similar references to dismiss Catholics and our traditions. Only it was the middle ages and not the 1950's, and our tradition and our love for it was said to be like the Pharisees love for the Law of Moses.

 

When I came back into the Church after 9/11/01 and began to become more traditionally minded I noticed very quickly non-traditionally minded Catholics using the very same lazy arguments against traditional Catholics. Anyway I still say it's a lazy and somewhat uncharitable way to marginalize, discredit and dismiss people one does not agree with.

Edited September 13, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

referencing the 1950's was a way to distinguish between some ambiguous idea of "stability" and the idea of "tradition"... for example, delatinizing Eastern Catholic Churches is a change in many cases to latinized practices that were centuries old, but it was entirely traditional unless you want to stabilize the Eastern Catholic Churches into their early twentieth century forms...

 

I'm sorry if you don't like my example.  suggesting it's 'uncharitable' the way I was using it is utterly ridiculous, though.  it seems many jimmies have been rustled in this thread.

[KnightofChrist]

referencing the 1950's was a way to distinguish between some ambiguous idea of "stability" and the idea of "tradition"... for example, delatinizing Eastern Catholic Churches is a change in many cases to latinized practices that were centuries old, but it was entirely traditional unless you want to stabilize the Eastern Catholic Churches into their early twentieth century forms... I'm sorry if you don't like my example.  suggesting it's 'uncharitable' the way I was using it is utterly ridiculous, though.  it seems many jimmies have been rustled in this thread.

No one was talking about wanting going back to the 1950's other than yourself, you alone brought that irrelevant topic into this discussion. It didn't cause me any grief. Pointing out that your reference is often used to dismiss and marginalize traditionally minded Catholics as old fuddy-duddies is not to say I've got my jimmies rustled (which I'm afraid is just another way to dismiss and marginalize. It's easy to dismiss those old fuddy duddies as just upset/mad/angry that they can go back to the '50's). I only objected to it because it is a lazy and somewhat rude way to dismiss people with whom you don't agree. No one here actually wants to go back to the '50's and no one advocated it so again it was completely irrelevant and a little rude to apply it to us or whomever you were talking about (Apo?).

I'll not be responding anymore to this particular topic as I see it has no purpose. I thought objecting to it may have encouraged you to drop the charge but you don't want to so it's not worth further discussion.

[Apotheoun]

referencing the 1950's was a way to distinguish between some ambiguous idea of "stability" and the idea of "tradition"... for example, delatinizing Eastern Catholic Churches is a change in many cases to latinized practices that were centuries old, but it was entirely traditional unless you want to stabilize the Eastern Catholic Churches into their early twentieth century forms...

 

I'm sorry if you don't like my example.  suggesting it's 'uncharitable' the way I was using it is utterly ridiculous, though.  it seems many jimmies have been rustled in this thread.

The Eastern Orthodox would love your posts, because they hold that Rome has been corrupting the faith for centuries (i.e. going all the way back to - and even before - the great schism). Rome - from an Orthodox perspective - has always been changing things, while Orthodoxy holds to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, an immutable faith (i.e., an experience of God's life and glory) that does not accept notions of "doctrinal development" or the need to have a "magisterium" that is constantly issuing new innovative liturgical directives. Orthodox simply do what has always been done in the Church, and each generation is charged with passing down the practice of the faith unaltered.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

referencing the 1950's was a way to distinguish between some ambiguous idea of "stability" and the idea of "tradition"... for example, delatinizing Eastern Catholic Churches is a change in many cases to latinized practices that were centuries old, but it was entirely traditional unless you want to stabilize the Eastern Catholic Churches into their early twentieth century forms...

 

I'm sorry if you don't like my example.  suggesting it's 'uncharitable' the way I was using it is utterly ridiculous, though.  it seems many jimmies have been rustled in this thread.

Were the 1950s changeless? I thought that Pius XII made major changes to the Paschal Vigil, and that he also shortened the Eucharistic fast, which had been from midnight until the reception of communion at morning Mass, to only three hours, and didn't he also define a new dogma, which - like most changes made by Rome - caused new ecumenical problems? I thought that quite a few changes to Roman Catholic practice took place in the 1950s, albeit minor in comparison to those that took place after Vatican II, when the Roman Church abandoned its historic liturgy for one created by a group of scholars, but changes all the same.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[arfink]

Ah yes, the age old battle of whether to change anything at all, unless of course the suggestion is to change it back.

[Aloysius]

I don't think I accused anyone of wanting to return to the 1950's, I used it as an example to illustrate the difference between stability, which is the crux of "everything is in flux so let's not do anything unless it calms down" and tradition.  and yes of course things changed in the 1950's, most notably the Holy Week rites that Bugnini had his hands in already at that time.

 

[attachment=3199:jimmies.jpg]

 

 

[Apotheoun]

But - as I pointed out - there were changes in the 1950s. Rome seems to like making changes, and many of the popes seem to believe that they are empowered to alter the liturgy (and other disciplines) at will, which is a notion that the Eastern Orthodox reject. Hierarchs in Orthodoxy are not empowered to change the Church's practices at will; instead, they are seen - along with the lay faithful - as guardians of Tradition. 

[Apotheoun]

I do find it interesting that debates today between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox look a lot like debates from 30 or 40 years ago between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

[Aloysius]

pretty much not true at all but thanks for playing.  if you insist upon framing this as all changes are equivalent, that's your business... but of course the Eastern Orthodox could have synods to change the disciplines surrounding clerical celibacy (ie to decide to make it mandatory if they wished) and it wouldn't be at all equivalent to them changing the liturgy.

 

are you trying to argue with me that popes shouldn't have unilateral power to alter the liturgy?  if so that's a valid argument to make, but it's not the argument we're having right now.