Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Nov 19th 2012 new
You still have a lot to learn about the Catholic faith.
Nov 21st 2012 new

It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Europe, Ireland and America! Now that it is out in the open and we have had the pederasty scandal, the dumbing down of the Faithful, the disintegration of chatechism, the shunning of reverence, and relativism and double speak from Rome to parish level, it is time for a change.

Although I am basically a Conservative, who loves Tradition, Latin and Greek, order and challenge, yet....

I am now, at long last, after resisting it for decades, ready to try a married Priesthood. Just as we may have to learn from our Eastern Catholic Brethren how to hold a reverent liturgy, so possibly may we need to learn the wisdom of embracing a married clergy. The past decade has opened my mind. I am now open to it. Let the priests be married, and let us see which model works better. I contend Jesus would have been married if he weren't planning on being crucified.

But, now that I think of it, most of my married male friends consider that they have been crucified! (There are of course a few exceptions.)

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. A married man suffers as one crucified, and so can better identify as Christ. By giving himself to a woman, and later to his family, he serves an apprenticeship for giving to his parish or diocese later as a priest.

Nov 21st 2012 new
Celibacy in the Eastern Church is tied to monasticism.
Nov 21st 2012 new

(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Eu...
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:

It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Europe, Ireland and America! Now that it is out in the open and we have had the pederasty scandal, the dumbing down of the Faithful, the disintegration of chatechism, the shunning of reverence, and relativism and double speak from Rome to parish level, it is time for a change.

Although I am basically a Conservative, who loves Tradition, Latin and Greek, order and challenge, yet....

I am now, at long last, after resisting it for decades, ready to try a married Priesthood. Just as we may have to learn from our Eastern Catholic Brethren how to hold a reverent liturgy, so possibly may we need to learn the wisdom of embracing a married clergy. The past decade has opened my mind. I am now open to it. Let the priests be married, and let us see which model works better. I contend Jesus would have been married if he weren't planning on being crucified.

But, now that I think of it, most of my married male friends consider that they have been crucified! (There are of course a few exceptions.)

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. A married man suffers as one crucified, and so can better identify as Christ. By giving himself to a woman, and later to his family, he serves an apprenticeship for giving to his parish or diocese later as a priest.

--hide--


Hi Gerald et alia,

Gerald, you wrote: "A married man suffers as one crucified, and so can better identify as Christ." Did you really mean this? I mean, are you suggesting that married men, uh, well, what you said ;-)?

Since priests were permitted to marry during the first thousand years of the Church's existence, there is obviously no serious theological reason why priests can't marry. One story I heard years ago is that the reason priests were finally forbidden to marry was because of property issues. This story may or may not be true.

I think an argument to be made against Occidental priests getting married is that if they do, the whole issue against any form of artificial birth control might very well suffer a serious blow. John, if you read this, maybe you can tell us how this is handled in the Oriental Churches.

James ☺

Nov 22nd 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: I think an argument to be made against
(Quote) James-17080 said:


I think an argument to be made against Occidental priests getting married is that if they do, the whole issue against any form of artificial birth control might very well suffer a serious blow. John, if you read this, maybe you can tell us how this is handled in the Oriental Churches.

James ☺

--hide--

What blow would that be, James? The argument against artificial birth control is the damage it does to the marriage by dividing the unitive and procreative purpose of marriage, and dimishing the relationship from the support each bring to each other and the flourishing it provides to what can the woman, who has to take the pill, give to "satisfy" the man.

I would think that a married man who is faithful and is ordained on that understanding (they do check the guy's family life, you know) makes a good witness to both the blessings of married life as well as the fruits of overcoming the struggles of it.

Nov 22nd 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Gerald et alia,Gerald, you wrote: "A married man suffers as one crucified,...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi Gerald et alia,

Gerald, you wrote: "A married man suffers as one crucified, and so can better identify as Christ." Did you really mean this? I mean, are you suggesting that married men, uh, well, what you said ;-)?

Since priests were permitted to marry during the first thousand years of the Church's existence, there is obviously no serious theological reason why priests can't marry. One story I heard years ago is that the reason priests were finally forbidden to marry was because of property issues. This story may or may not be true.

I think an argument to be made against Occidental priests getting married is that if they do, the whole issue against any form of artificial birth control might very well suffer a serious blow. John, if you read this, maybe you can tell us how this is handled in the Oriental Churches.

James ☺

--hide--


Latin rite priests were not allowed to marry during the first thousand years of the Church. That's a fallacy that the author Jason Berry and his ilk promote. The requirement for priestly celibacy in Latin Christendom dates back to the time of Pope St. Leo the Great (~391-461). The practice of Latin rite priests and bishops taking wives and concubines was an abuse which became a widespread problem during the mediaeval Church (starting I think in the 7th century), only to be reformed by law in the 12th century.

Nov 22nd 2012 new
Yes. But celibacy in the Western Church was not a universal discipline. Married priests were common in places like Britain. The discipline depended on the local ecclesiastical province until St. Gregory VII made it universal in the Western Church.

The top-down curial papacy that developed in the later Middle Ages didn't exist in the so-called Dark Ages.
Nov 22nd 2012 new
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Europe, Ireland ...
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:

It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Europe, Ireland and America! Now that it is out in the open and we have had the pederasty scandal, the dumbing down of the Faithful, the disintegration of chatechism, the shunning of reverence, and relativism and double speak from Rome to parish level, it is time for a change.

Although I am basically a Conservative, who loves Tradition, Latin and Greek, order and challenge, yet....

I am now, at long last, after resisting it for decades, ready to try a married Priesthood. Just as we may have to learn from our Eastern Catholic Brethren how to hold a reverent liturgy, so possibly may we need to learn the wisdom of embracing a married clergy. The past decade has opened my mind. I am now open to it. Let the priests be married, and let us see which model works better. I contend Jesus would have been married if he weren't planning on being crucified.

But, now that I think of it, most of my married male friends consider that they have been crucified! (There are of course a few exceptions.)

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. A married man suffers as one crucified, and so can better identify as Christ. By giving himself to a woman, and later to his family, he serves an apprenticeship for giving to his parish or diocese later as a priest.

--hide--


Sorry, Gerald, I am all for resurrecting the married presbyterate in the Byzantine Catholic churches in the United States, but to say that a married man suffers as one is crucified more than a single person is untenable. And I am not quite sure what to make of that gay clergy argument.
Nov 22nd 2012 new
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Europe, Ireland ...
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:

It seems to me that we in the Roman Church have seen what a Gay clergy gives us. Just look at Europe, Ireland and America! Now that it is out in the open and we have had the pederasty scandal, the dumbing down of the Faithful, the disintegration of chatechism, the shunning of reverence, and relativism and double speak from Rome to parish level, it is time for a change.

Although I am basically a Conservative, who loves Tradition, Latin and Greek, order and challenge, yet....

I am now, at long last, after resisting it for decades, ready to try a married Priesthood. Just as we may have to learn from our Eastern Catholic Brethren how to hold a reverent liturgy, so possibly may we need to learn the wisdom of embracing a married clergy. The past decade has opened my mind. I am now open to it. Let the priests be married, and let us see which model works better. I contend Jesus would have been married if he weren't planning on being crucified.

But, now that I think of it, most of my married male friends consider that they have been crucified! (There are of course a few exceptions.)

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. A married man suffers as one crucified, and so can better identify as Christ. By giving himself to a woman, and later to his family, he serves an apprenticeship for giving to his parish or diocese later as a priest.

--hide--


Sorry, Gerald, I am all for resurrecting the married presbyterate in the Byzantine Catholic churches in the United States, but to say that a married man suffers as one is crucified more than a single person is untenable. And I am not quite sure what to make of that gay clergy argument.
Nov 22nd 2012 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: No. That the Code suppressed all prior canonical rulings by making them obsolete. That's what I had h...
(Quote) John-220051 said: No. That the Code suppressed all prior canonical rulings by making them obsolete. That's what I had heard from a priest.
--hide--


That was my impression -- periodically the code of canon law needs to be tidied up, updated, made coherent, etc. It was re-written. Replacing the prior code was the intent.

Having married priests can't be seen (today) to cause THAT much of a problem because Anglican priests are allowed to convert and be ordained even if married. I don't want to get into a long debate with anyone that it's on an exception basis, it's not to be the norm, etc., etc. I know that. But my point is that I've met novus ordo rite parishioners from a couple of parishes that have a married priest and they think nothing of it. To them it's no big deal.

Rome wants celibacy for the Latin Rite then that works for me. But getting bent out of shape over eastern rite parishes having married priests given the long history of that in eastern lands... and given the other much worse problems these days... I just think we've all got bigger fish to fry than that.

My two cents

Posts 11 - 20 of 47