Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Apotheoun]

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.

Al, you have to admit that Rome is constantly changing things. What is tradition for the Roman Church? It certainly is not the liturgy, nor is it disciplines, I guess tradition is simply certain theological formulas, but even those can develop according to modern Roman Catholic teaching. So what is tradition? Orthodox Christians see the whole practice of the faith as Tradition, as something that is given to the Church by the Lord Himself, and not as something created by the hierarchy. 

 

As far as the idea of popes not having unilateral power to alter the liturgy is concerned, I thought that was evident. No one man should be able to alter the Church's prayer life. If you change the prayers of the Church you change her faith. That is the historic understanding of the matter at hand. Have the changes made by the popes over the course of the last forty years made the Church stronger and more peaceful? Or have they simply divided Catholics from each other?

 

Now as far as the argument we are having at the present time is concerned, we are arguing about that (i.e., the power to change the liturgy and everything that flows from it), because from an Eastern Christian perspective priestly discipline is intimately connected to the liturgy. Perhaps it is just another sign of the decay in the modern Roman Church that everything is seen as standing in isolation, but that viewpoint does not represent the patristic tradition where everything was seen as holistically connected. After all the word catholic itself concerns the whole, so is it any wonder that Orthodox are often mystified by the Protestant approach to the faith taken by the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

:bounce:  :sos: I'm not talking about those changes that have occurred, only the proposed change being considered, I've proposed various models under which a change to the discipline of priestly celibacy might prove beneficial (not actually endorsed such a change, mind you), all of which are ways that would still promote celibacy which I feel is necessary.  this isn't a matter of isolating one thing from another, it's a matter of evaluating one particular idea on its own merits.  the crux of your argument hasn't been (or seemed to me) that a married priesthood discipline would affect the liturgy in negative ways because of the intimate connection between priestly discipline and the liturgy, but that that change is the same thing as any other change and would be detrimental because it's a change.

 

as for what makes Rome distinct, well, I think the Roman Church doesn't have the same hangup of wanting to be 'unique' as the localized Orthodox Churches have had.  the Roman Church generally doesn't have anything against easternizing if it were beneficial to the spiritual lives of its members, so long as it maintains connections with the Apostolic traditions (or at least ideally it would add the caveat of retaining connections to Apostolic traditions).

[Aloysius]

anyway, I would certainly thing there should be a general synod of the Roman Church to determine this if they did want to alter mandatory priestly celibacy, I'd be with you on that point, I wouldn't want the Pope just unilaterally doing it... though if he did I'd accept it and promote all the models of understanding it that I was discussing in this thread.

[Apotheoun]

:bounce:  :sos: I'm not talking about those changes that have occurred, only the proposed change being considered, I've proposed various models under which a change to the discipline of priestly celibacy might prove beneficial (not actually endorsed such a change, mind you), all of which are ways that would still promote celibacy which I feel is necessary.  this isn't a matter of isolating one thing from another, it's a matter of evaluating one particular idea on its own merits.  the crux of your argument hasn't been (or seemed to me) that a married priesthood discipline would affect the liturgy in negative ways because of the intimate connection between priestly discipline and the liturgy, but that that change is the same thing as any other change and would be detrimental because it's a change.

 

as for what makes Rome distinct, well, I think the Roman Church doesn't have the same hangup of wanting to be 'unique' as the localized Orthodox Churches have had.  the Roman Church generally doesn't have anything against easternizing if it were beneficial to the spiritual lives of its members, so long as it maintains connections with the Apostolic traditions (or at least ideally it would add the caveat of retaining connections to Apostolic traditions).

Yes, I know that you are - like a modernist - isolating priestly discipline from the liturgy, but that approach is not possible for Eastern Christians, because we see the whole faith as contained in the liturgy (both kerygma and dogma). Our approaches are different, mine is patristic in nature, while yours is Protestant.

 

Priestly celibacy (a Western practice) and liturgical continence (an Eastern practice) are an intimate part of the liturgy. What I fear the West will do, which it has been doing for some time now, is change a discipline without understanding how it will impact the liturgy. As I asked before, and by the way a question you never answered, are Roman Catholics willing to forego the practice of daily Mass? Eastern Orthodoxy does not have daily Eucharistic liturgies because that would require that priests maintain perfect continence. Is Rome going to follow the ancient practice or just make up a new one to suit its present views in a Protestant fashion? Another question to ask is: why change this discipline? What is the reason for doing so? Is it just to change for the sake of change? Or is there some pressing reason to change this ancient Western practice?

 

Perhaps you have reasons for the change, but do those reasons coordinate with the historic views of the Roman Church? It is interesting that the Roman Church no longer seems to care about maintaining its own unique customs? Why is that?

 

Orthodox see their tradition as God inspired, and so they refuse to change it to suit any particular group or non-Orthodox mindset. Why is Rome so willing to change? Is it maybe because Rome doesn't see its liturgical tradition as important any more?

 

Just some questions to ponder.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

again, I am not isolating the issue from the liturgy, I am isolating it from historical questions about the last 50 years as those things are, indeed, different questions.  of course everything is intimately related, I never suggested otherwise, the only things I've contradicted you on is the idea that all 'changes' are the same, as I suggest taking each particular change as a question on its own merits (including of course, its liturgical merits, but that doesn't mean "married priests will remove all sacred images and altar rails and give you communion in a paper cup")  if you could kindly stop wildly accusing me of modernism and protestantism, I'd really appreciate it, I haven't even said I support changing the practice of celibacy, only mused about the possibilities of how to view it if it happened.

 

you have asked good questions.  of course the model I suggested about celibate priests still retaining control of the Church with a supplemental and perhaps unpaid (or barely paid) priesthood would maintain the possibility for daily mass with the practice of continence.  the model where monasteries would be stronger would inevitably end up with less daily mass unless there was a serious push for celibate priests alongside it, perhaps insisting that all pastors at least be celibate.

[Apotheoun]

Get rid of priestly celibacy, because that is a real problem in the Roman Church, but ignore liturgies like the one below:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV_WrM1V5C8&t=7m35s

 

Skip to 7 minutes 35 seconds for the real fun.

[Aloysius]

remember on this thread where our clash started, you asked me if that is the way it would be done, and I of course admitted the models I was describing were pipe dreams... but they're also important considerations for how we should approach it if the Roman Church did go in that direction.

[arfink]

ZOMG SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TYPICAL OF ALL ROMAN CATHOLICS MESSED UP A LITURGY AND IT'S ON YOUTUBE NOW, THE POPE IS AN APOSTATE, CATHOLICS DON'T CARE ABOUT LITURGY, ROME IS PROTESTANT NAO!

 

Cuz that makes sense. Natch. :bananarap:

[Apotheoun]

again, I am not isolating the issue from the liturgy, I am isolating it from historical questions about the last 50 years as those things are, indeed, different questions.  of course everything is intimately related, I never suggested otherwise, the only things I've contradicted you on is the idea that all 'changes' are the same, as I suggest taking each particular change as a question on its own merits (including of course, its liturgical merits, but that doesn't mean "married priests will remove all sacred images and altar rails and give you communion in a paper cup")  if you could kindly stop wildly accusing me of modernism and protestantism, I'd really appreciate it, I haven't even said I support changing the practice of celibacy, only mused about the possibilities of how to view it if it happened.

 

you have asked good questions.  of course the model I suggested about celibate priests still retaining control of the Church with a supplemental and perhaps unpaid (or barely paid) priesthood would maintain the possibility for daily mass with the practice of continence.  the model where monasteries would be stronger would inevitably end up with less daily mass unless there was a serious push for celibate priests alongside it, perhaps insisting that all pastors at least be celibate.

A better question is: will having married priests in the Roman Church restore images and altar rails? I think not.

[Apotheoun]

remember on this thread where our clash started, you asked me if that is the way it would be done, and I of course admitted the models I was describing were pipe dreams... but they're also important considerations for how we should approach it if the Roman Church did go in that direction.

And so far your answer is to just do more new things. I guess once innovation (a word used by the Fathers to speak about heresy) is embraced it is impossible to stop it. Such is life I suppose.

 

I will say this: it is sad that all the worst things I experienced as a Protestant are the very things that the Roman Church seems bound and determined to institute within its own life.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

ZOMG SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TYPICAL OF ALL ROMAN CATHOLICS MESSED UP A LITURGY AND IT'S ON YOUTUBE NOW, THE POPE IS AN APOSTATE, CATHOLICS DON'T CARE ABOUT LITURGY, ROME IS PROTESTANT NAO!

 

Cuz that makes sense. Natch. :bananarap:

The really sad thing is that Pope Francis just visited that cathedral and he did absolutely nothing to correct the liturgical abuses that go on there. But then the pope began one of his liturgies during World Youth Day with an opening flash mob instead of a hymn. My Orthodox friends at OC.net found that particularly hilarious.

[Aloysius]

I thought you already said that quite a few times.  anyway, duly noted I guess... 

 

will married priests restore images and altar rails?  as I mused in one post, maybe in some dioceses with more traditional bishops, where the bishops decline to rein in rebellious liturgist priests motivated by the lack of priests available who might have the potential to recruit men more well versed in the liturgy who were called to the married life but could receive a call to the priesthood were it possible for them.  but anyway, would married priests bring rainbows and unicorns and fix every problem in the Church?  no.  but is it possible for a married priesthood in a traditional context to be beneficial in the Church?  it is certainly possible, and there's nothing inherent to the idea of married priests that would inherently degrade the liturgy.  it all depends on who they are and how they're formed, just as it now depends on that for the celibate priests.

[KnightofChrist]

ZOMG SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TYPICAL OF ALL ROMAN CATHOLICS MESSED UP A LITURGY AND IT'S ON YOUTUBE NOW, THE POPE IS AN APOSTATE, CATHOLICS DON'T CARE ABOUT LITURGY, ROME IS PROTESTANT NAO!
 
Cuz that makes sense. Natch. :bananarap:

Liturgical abuses like that one, as well as lesser and worse variations are rampant in the Church today. I do wish Rome would do a lot more to stop it. As I said at the beginning of this thread married priests will do nothing to help stop the crises in the Church today if traditional disciplines are not first restored. And thus far there's seems to be no real strong push to put such abuses in check, and again many are de facto allowed to run around presenting themselves to be Catholic as they help the murder of millions, other than mostly words Rome and Bishops take mostly no action against them at all. It scares me quite frankly that so many do not take theses crises as seriously as they should.

[Apotheoun]

Traditional bishop? Are there different kinds of bishops in the modern Roman Church? In Orthodoxy there are just bishops, with a few of them being given titles (e.g., metropolitan or patriarch) based upon the importance of their local Church.

[Apotheoun]

Liturgical abuses like that one, as well as lesser and worse variations are rampant in the Church today. 

Agreed, and it is easy to find strange liturgies on Youtube. Of course, I don't have to watch them on Youtube because there are plenty of bizarre liturgies in the SF Bay Area that I can attend in person if I want.

[arfink]

And I do so love how it's always the same youtube video that gets used over and over again. It changes only very rarely. First it was the clown mass video that was big. Then the scary puppets video. Now this one, because it so happens that Pope Francis went there and didn't cut people's heads off.

[Apotheoun]

And I do so love how it's always the same youtube video that gets used over and over again. It changes only very rarely. First it was the clown mass video that was big. Then the scary puppets video. Now this one, because it so happens that Pope Francis went there and didn't cut people's heads off.

Do you want me to post different videos?

[arfink]

There should be a rule that in order to talk about ongoing liturgical abuses you should have to use a new video about liturgical abuse every single time. Otherwise it looks like you're beating a dead horse.

[Apotheoun]

Now this one, because it so happens that Pope Francis went there and didn't cut people's heads off.

He didn't need to cut anyone's head off, but he could have reminded the bishop and priests serving there that the liturgy is sacred, and that circus music (another thing that has been used at that particular cathedral) is not appropriate during Catholic worship.

[Apotheoun]

There should be a rule that in order to talk about ongoing liturgical abuses you should have to use a new video about liturgical abuse every single time. Otherwise it looks like you're beating a dead horse.

Do you want me to post more videos, because I can if you would like.

 

 

Postscript: And I promise not to use the puppet video.   :smile3:

Edited September 13, 2013 by Apotheoun