OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 06:18:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Clerical Celibacy  (Read 4353 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« on: December 05, 2007, 12:41:23 AM »

This discussion has been split from the thread "Patriarch Bartholomew is ready to accept the Pope's primacy"

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13577.0.html

- Cleveland, Global Moderator


Can you site any such deliberate Latinization since John Paul II or John XXIII for that matter?

If you had read my post that discussed, among other things, Eastern Catholic canon law, you would have found one example.  Believe me, there are many others.  Here's one for you:  Eastern Catholic Churches that are found outside of their traditional territories are often at the whim of Latin authorities for various matters of discipline.  Take clerical celibacy.  In North America (and elsewhere), this is under the control of a papal representative of some kind, I forget his title and exact responsibilities.  Anyway, until the late 1990's, ordination of married men was not allowed in any Eastern Catholic Church outside of their "traditional" territories.  I have personally met a married Ukrainian Catholic Priest who, in the early 1990's, as a deacon, was "smuggled" to the Ukraine, transferred to the aegis of a local bishop, ordained priest, and then given back "on loan" to his North American jurisdiction in order to function as a priest at home.  Despite this policy, the Ukrainian Catholics in North America have quite a lfew married clergy.  I'm not sure if they are in the minority or majority.  The Melkite (Lebanese and others) Catholic Church, however, in North America at least, is in a very different situation because of this policy.  I believe that there is at least one married Melkite priest in North America, there could be others, but I have been told that there might only be the one.  Melkites who post here might want to correct me, but there you have it.

Right now, Rome has a cleric in place in the aforementioned role who has agreed to "look the other way" when it comes to Eastern Catholic bishops ordaining married men in North America (and elsewhere?).  However, this is completely at the whim of this representative concerned.  If he changes his mind, or if his successor is of a different mind on this issue, married Eastern Catholics could once again find themselves having to play an elaborate jurisdictional game in order to be ordained priests, or simply content themselves with being deacons.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2007, 10:57:10 AM by cleveland » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2007, 03:45:04 AM »

If you had read my post that discussed, among other things, Eastern Catholic canon law, you would have found one example.  Believe me, there are many others.  Here's one for you:  Eastern Catholic Churches that are found outside of their traditional territories are often at the whim of Latin authorities for various matters of discipline.  Take clerical celibacy.  In North America (and elsewhere), this is under the control of a papal representative of some kind, I forget his title and exact responsibilities.  Anyway, until the late 1990's, ordination of married men was not allowed in any Eastern Catholic Church outside of their "traditional" territories.  I have personally met a married Ukrainian Catholic Priest who, in the early 1990's, as a deacon, was "smuggled" to the Ukraine, transferred to the aegis of a local bishop, ordained priest, and then given back "on loan" to his North American jurisdiction in order to function as a priest at home.  Despite this policy, the Ukrainian Catholics in North America have quite a lfew married clergy.  I'm not sure if they are in the minority or majority.  The Melkite (Lebanese and others) Catholic Church, however, in North America at least, is in a very different situation because of this policy.  I believe that there is at least one married Melkite priest in North America, there could be others, but I have been told that there might only be the one.  Melkites who post here might want to correct me, but there you have it.

Right now, Rome has a cleric in place in the aforementioned role who has agreed to "look the other way" when it comes to Eastern Catholic bishops ordaining married men in North America (and elsewhere?).  However, this is completely at the whim of this representative concerned.  If he changes his mind, or if his successor is of a different mind on this issue, married Eastern Catholics could once again find themselves having to play an elaborate jurisdictional game in order to be ordained priests, or simply content themselves with being deacons.

The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.

The Church notes that the practice is sanctioned by the New Testament.

Mt 19:12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.

1 Cor 7:6-7
This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am (single? widowed?), but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

1 Cor 7:25-26
Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.

1 Cor 7:32-34
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.

Priestly celibacy became law in the Church in the 6th century.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2007, 05:06:53 AM »

The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.

Priestly celibacy became law in the Church in the 6th century.

But this is really beside the point of the question he was answering. The question was whether or not, since the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, there was still latinisation of the Eastern Churches. The answer has to be yes, by reason of the example, that Cardinal Ratzinger mandated clerical celibacy as a general rule for the Eastern Churches. This general rule allowed for some exceptions, but it was not in any way similar to what some of the Eastern Catholic Churches were asking for. They were asking for an abrogation of the general rule of celibacy as it was applied to them, and the answer from Cardinal Ratzinger was no. So the latinisation influence on the Eastern Catholic Churches has continued as is seen from this example.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2007, 02:09:10 PM »

The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.

Since Stanley has ably come to my defence (thank you, BTW Smiley) I will not assail you with the question "did you even bother to read my post?".

Quote
The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law.

I agree.

Quote
Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States.

Even though agents of Rome have done their best to stop it in the case of the Eastern Churches, yes, this is true.  Once again, I must restrain myself from asking you the aforementioned question, thanks to the kind intervention of stanley123.  Wink

Quote
Priestly celibacy became law in the Church in the 6th century.

Not so.  Bishops (at least in the East, I am not sure about the West) had to be celibate by this time, but not priests.  I grant you that there were attempts at this time and earlier to enforce clerical celibacy, but priestly celibacy was not really enforced in the West until the 11th or 12th century, and it has never held sway in the East, with the exception of the odd "blip" or two in time, after which it was quite rapidly erased.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 02:15:26 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2007, 05:24:50 PM »

But this is really beside the point.

It is exactly the point. Its a matter of dicipline and obedience. No already married and validly ordained priest would be refused for that reason. No latinization there or any promises broken.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2007, 04:17:02 PM »

A matter of ancient church discipline hardly qualifies as Latinization as it is not “Latin” at all but in my view universally Christian for several reasons.

Joab Anias,

The fact that you do not personally view it as latinisation is irrelevant.  The practice of having married clergy is just as ancient and revered as the practice of having celibate clergy in the Tradition of the undivided Church of the first millenium.   


Quote
Orthodox nervousness regarding the Catholic Church cannot all be dismissed simply as Orthodox paranoia, though there is an unfortunate element of that present.  There are prominent Catholics out there, who, IMHO, are rightly viewed by the Orthodox as having a kind of benevolent yet arrogant superiority complex regarding the Eastern Church based on genuine ignorance about the differences between the West and Orthodoxy.  "The Orthodox are exactly the same as us, except that they are completely disorganised and don't have the benefit of communion with the Roman see, poor souls.Oh yes, and they have such a beautiful and rich liturigical tradition."


This is a quote from one of my posts of November 29.  If I were to judge you solely by what you have written in your response to me in your last post, I would say that you have proven my point about Catholics who have "a kind of benevolent yet arrogant superiority complex regarding the Eastern Church...."  The only difference is that you appear to have gone one better.  You speak as if you are not ignorant of the East, and yet it appears that you have a heartfelt desire for us to embrace clerical celibacy, since (in what I see as your ironically chauvanistic view) it is absolutely "the only way to go." 

I expect that you may dismiss my post as being overly polemical.  Firstly, I am not trying to be polemical for its own sake,  I am only trying to portray the facts as I see them.  Secondly, I believe that polemics sometimes have their place when it is necessary to clarify positions.  I see no reason to "make nice" over clear disagreement when this will not make the differences in positions disappear.  To me, this smacks of condescension and false love.  Please know that I can love you and still disagree with you strongly.  To not admit to such disagreement, can at times, in my view, be a disservice to true brotherly love.

In Christ,

James
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 04:39:36 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2007, 07:11:56 PM »

Joab Anias,

The fact that you do not personally view it as latinisation is irrelevant.  The practice of having married clergy is just as ancient and revered as the practice of having celibate clergy in the Tradition of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
 

Ah, so both practices are tradition then.

Quote
If I were to judge you solely by what you have written in your response to me in your last post, I would say that you have proven my point about Catholics who have "a kind of benevolent yet arrogant superiority complex regarding the Eastern Church...."


Seems you aleady have.

Quote
The only difference is that you appear to have gone one better.  You speak as if you are not ignorant of the East, and yet it appears that you have a heartfelt desire for us to embrace clerical celibacy, since (in what I see as your ironically chauvanistic view) it is absolutely "the only way to go."

Never said that nor do I think I implied that. Its hardly up to me anyway.

Quote
I expect that you may dismiss my post as being overly polemical.  Firstly, I am not trying to be polemical for its own sake,
 

I know, you can't help yourself.  j/k Tongue

Quote
I am only trying to portray the facts as I see them.
 

What facts? I don't see any beyond "The practice of having married clergy is just as ancient and revered as the practice of having celibate clergy".

Quote
Secondly, I believe that polemics sometimes have their place when it is necessary to clarify positions.  I see no reason to "make nice" over clear disagreement when this will not make the differences in positions disappear.  To me, this smacks of condescension and false love.  Please know that I can love you and still disagree with you strongly.  To not admit to such disagreement, can at times, in my view, be a disservice to true brotherly love.

Your percieving a disagreement where there is none my friend.

Your wasting your breath. I have no gripe with Priests being married if they can serve daily Mass and attend the confessional and to the people, i.e. Do their jobs and then be there for their Children and Spouses as they should. I would ask you though, what happens if a dying person calls for the Priest when His kid falls and breaks an arm?

I just think its better that they aren't both because Saint Paul said it was better. There should be nothing found condecending about the Gospel unless your in love with your passions and wish to deny what it says. Want the quotes?

The fact remains, there is no denial of both married and validly ordained priests though at the same time the Holy Gospel and ancient practice of the Church logically endorces that which provides for a singularly pastoral vocation.

The difficulties of sheparding a flock of believers and a flock of kids simultaneously is obvious don't you think? Stop making it about the Church when its clearly about a personal dicipline. If you want to be a married priest go be one, no one is going to stop you if you think you can handle two vocations at once.

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 07:18:42 PM by Joab Anias » Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2007, 09:50:12 PM »

Quote
"Your [sic] your breath. I have no gripe with Priests being married if they can serve daily Mass and attend the confessional and to the people, i.e. Do their jobs and then be there for their Children and Spouses as they should. I would ask you though, what happens if a dying person calls for the Priest when His kid falls and breaks an arm?"

You've built yourself a strawman, to which I would reply:  'What happens if a dying person calls for the celibate Priest when his (the priest's) edlerly mother has fallen and broken a hip?'  Roll Eyes
.
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2007, 09:58:59 PM »

 The fact remains, there is no denial of both married and validly ordained priests though at the same time the Holy Gospel and ancient practice of the Church logically endorces that which provides for a singularly pastoral vocation.

The irony here is that St. Peter, upon whom the Latin organization predicates their supremacy and authority, was himself married and had children.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2007, 12:17:23 AM »

The irony here is that St. Peter, upon whom the Latin organization predicates their supremacy and authority, was himself married and had children.
A further irony is that there were Popes, such as Alexander VI, who had children and mistresses, but were not married.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2007, 12:35:44 AM »

The irony here is that St. Peter, upon whom the Latin organization predicates their supremacy and authority, was himself married and had children.

Just like your bishops do today, eh?
Logged
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2007, 03:47:50 AM »

You've built yourself a strawman, to which I would reply:  'What happens if a dying person calls for the celibate Priest when his (the priest's) edlerly mother has fallen and broken a hip?'  Roll Eyes

Simple you ask if the mother is dying and get your priorities straight. With a family who is the priority, the family or the parish? Straw men are burned with logic.

Whats "Your [sic] your breath."  mean anyway. Are you calling me sick? lol.

Is what Saint Paul says a straw man too?  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 03:51:26 AM by Joab Anias » Logged
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2007, 03:49:31 AM »

A further irony is that there were Popes, such as Alexander VI, who had children and mistresses, but were not married.

Sounds like a good argument for clerical celibacy to me. Even for marital chastity for that matter. We all need to avoid lust right?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2007, 05:23:48 AM »

Sounds like a good argument for clerical celibacy to me.
Huh
Precisely how is forbidding marriage to people supposed to help them remain chaste and prevent them from having mistresses and children outside of marriage? Huh
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 05:29:33 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
Posts: 85



« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2007, 09:08:44 AM »

Exactly how does the sin of one of the Borgia popes make a case against priestly celibacy?
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2007, 11:21:29 AM »

Simple you ask if the mother is dying and get your priorities straight. With a family who is the priority, the family or the parish? Straw men are burned with logic.

So you're saying the celibate priest's mother is not family?

Careful of the ashes.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2007, 12:13:39 PM »

Huh
Precisely how is forbidding marriage to people supposed to help them remain chaste and prevent them from having mistresses and children outside of marriage? Huh

Well, marriage won't necessarily do that either. Alexander VI was awfully frisky. He would have just added adultery to his other sins.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2007, 12:32:34 PM »

Just like your bishops do today, eh?

We freely admit that it's a matter of discipline imposed as a practical matter.  We're not the ones running around making false claims that the Gospel and Apostolic practice mandate clerical celibacy.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2007, 12:35:05 PM »

We freely admit that it's a matter of discipline imposed as a practical matter.  We're not the ones running around making false claims that the Gospel and Apostolic practice mandate clerical celibacy.

Neither am I. We keep our discipline on clerical celibacy for the same reasons you keep yours on episcopal celibacy. Neither of us can justifiably call our respective disciplines unapostolic.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2007, 12:36:38 PM »

Neither am I. We keep our discipline on clerical celibacy for the same reasons you keep yours on episcopal celibacy. Neither of us can justifiably call our respective disciplines unapostolic.

And yet one of you just did earlier in this thread.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2007, 12:42:33 PM »

And yet one of you just did earlier in this thread.

I didn't, I was just calling you to consistency in your position. You can't use St. Peter as an example against us if you do not do so against your own church's discipline.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:42:48 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2007, 12:49:40 PM »

I didn't, I was just calling you to consistency in your position. You can't use St. Peter as an example against us if you do not do so against your own church's discipline.

You apparently missed my point, then.  I was using St. Peter as an example to refute the point advanced that clerical celibacy was mandated by the Gospel and Apostolic practice.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2007, 01:01:44 PM »

You apparently missed my point, then.  I was using St. Peter as an example to refute the point advanced that clerical celibacy was mandated by the Gospel and Apostolic practice.

Sorry, then. I admit to skimming the last couple pages of this thread. I didn't know that you were using it from that vantage point.
Logged
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2007, 01:33:52 AM »

So you're saying the celibate priest's mother is not family?

Careful of the ashes.  Roll Eyes


Said no such thing, sure she is family, thats obvious but the question is which member is dying. Again, priorities. A pastoral position of a Priest is foremost to the sheparding of souls is it not? Just as it is to the pastoral postion of a Father. Not to say they cannot be combined but Saint Paul says in the inspired word of God that its better not to.

Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2007, 02:07:51 AM »

Said no such thing, sure she is family, thats obvious but the question is which member is dying. Again, priorities. A pastoral position of a Priest is foremost to the sheparding of souls is it not? Just as it is to the pastoral postion of a Father. Not to say they cannot be combined but Saint Paul says in the inspired word of God that its better not to.

Did not our Lord Himself say, 'let the dead bury the dead'? What exactly is the source of your priorities?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2007, 04:09:08 AM »

Said no such thing, sure she is family, thats obvious but the question is which member is dying. Again, priorities. A pastoral position of a Priest is foremost to the sheparding of souls is it not? Just as it is to the pastoral postion of a Father. Not to say they cannot be combined but Saint Paul says in the inspired word of God that its better not to.
When I was a young priest and serving a Serbian parish my grandfather died.  His funeral was on Saint Luke's day in another town.  In order to be there I had to cancel attending the Slava of a Serbian family who have Saint Luke as their patron Saint.  The family never forgave me for putting my grandfather's funeral in front of their home Service.  So what you say is very painful for me.  And as you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with the celibacy issue - the demands of family is much wider than the tiny nuclear unit of husband and wife.
Logged
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2007, 08:16:33 PM »

Did not our Lord Himself say, 'let the dead bury the dead'? What exactly is the source of your priorities?

Yes the Lord said that of those refusing to answer His call. In those who have answered it is His call to serve Him in serving others. So the source of those priorities comes from ones vows of their vocation to the Lord.
Logged
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2007, 08:24:02 PM »

When I was a young priest and serving a Serbian parish my grandfather died.  His funeral was on Saint Luke's day in another town.  In order to be there I had to cancel attending the Slava of a Serbian family who have Saint Luke as their patron Saint.  The family never forgave me for putting my grandfather's funeral in front of their home Service.  So what you say is very painful for me.  And as you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with the celibacy issue - the demands of family is much wider than the tiny nuclear unit of husband and wife.

How unfortunate Fr.

I will pray for them.

I too know what it feels like to be unforgiven by others. There is a lesson there from the Lord I believe.

I am sure the Lord does forgive though.

By the way St Luke was the name I chose for my Chrismation at a young age.

Peace.
Logged
RPConover
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2007, 03:00:56 AM »

When I was a young priest and serving a Serbian parish my grandfather died.  His funeral was on Saint Luke's day in another town.  In order to be there I had to cancel attending the Slava of a Serbian family who have Saint Luke as their patron Saint.  The family never forgave me for putting my grandfather's funeral in front of their home Service.  So what you say is very painful for me.  And as you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with the celibacy issue - the demands of family is much wider than the tiny nuclear unit of husband and wife.

It bothers me quite a bit that anyone would have the gall to hold a grudge against anyone, no matter what their vocation, concerning someone attending the funeral of their own grandfather over a home Service. What good is a Service performed with resentment of that sort in one's heart?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 03:03:08 AM by RPConover » Logged
Just Passing through
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Ruthenian
Posts: 12


« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2008, 02:00:56 PM »

There are at LEAST 8 different topics here that are mentioned but not explored or discussed...  This thread is a meandering one that raises questions that are going unanswered and unexplored.  No one seems to be answering the previous poster, new objections or points are getting made which are NOT answers to objections or points previously made.

  • The Origins of priestly celibacy
  • Biblical rationale for priestly celibacy
  • Biblical rationale for married priests
  • Problems of priesthood and married/family life
  • Difficulties celibates encounter
  • Examples and Latin married priests/popes
  • Reasons or motivations for celibacy as norm for all Catholic clergy in North America
  • Discussion of if unia agreements ensured the spread of the married presbyterate to wherever Greek Catholics settled

So far the "debate" looks something like:

Person A: Celibacy is a modern Latinization
Person B: There are Biblical reasons for celibacy
Person C: Saint Peter was married
Person A: There are Biblical reasons for married priests
Person B: Saint Paul was celibate
Person C: Saint Peter was married
Person B: Married priests are not as available
Person C: Popes had kids
Father D: I had a difficult time as a celibate with a family issue
Person A: Celibacy is from the west
Person C: Orthodox bishops are celibate

This could go on for days, weeks, months, years... So far it is a lot like phone tag where the goal is to ONLY get voice mail and never speak to each other.

No one is answering the points or objections raised by the previous or next poster very well... So far.
Logged
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2008, 04:44:06 PM »

If I may add my 2 cents regarding how married priests balance their priestly duties and family duties...

I am married to a priest, who has no problem balancing the two whatsoever, as I support fully his need to serve his flock.  Granted, we have no children (yet), and he is one of two priests in the parish, which (in theory) alleviates some of this issue, however...

Please, I mean no offense, but saying that the balance of priestly duties with family duties is a reason for priests to remain celibate is ludicrous.  How do you explain the thousands upon thousands of priests who have done this successfully- some with large numbers of children?  This is why when a married man seeks ordination in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (I can only speak from my own experience), his wife has to agree to support his ministry by writing a letter stating the same.  Letter aside, though, I don't know a single presbytera who would ever hinder her husband in his ministry.  I myself, if presented with the situation suggested above (dying person vs. child with a broken arm), would send my husband on his way to be at the side of the dying person, while I take care of our child.  My husband and I have changed plans many times because of parishioners in the hospital, even on our first wedding anniversary.  I would never even think of asking him to lay aside his priestly duties to a dying person for something less important, or something I could handle by myself (such as a child with a broken arm).  Both he and I recognize the extreme importance and urgency of ministering to the dying.

Fr. Ambrose made it clear that such problems can arise even for celibate clergy, but what you are missing in considering the married priest is that his marriage is a partnership with a wife who understands the pressures and issues, and does whatever she can to support her husband's ministry.  This partnership strengthens his ministry, it does not weaken it.  Both parties make sacrifices, and it's not always easy.  Even I, whose husband has been ordained a relatively short time, know this.  But it is a rewarding life that I wouldn't trade for anything.

My own experience aside, the numbers speak for themselves.  You can't deny the sheer numbers of successful married priests.  I can name at least 50 off the top of my mind of whom I have direct knowledge, who are wonderful husbands and fathers, and balance that with beautiful, fruitful ministries.

Keep in mind, as well, that a married priest is not the only person in the world who is confronted with the issue of balancing their work with their family?  What about a surgeon who has a child with a broken arm, but also has a dying patient who urgently needs his care?  My own father, a restaurant owner, missed many a chorus concert and other fatherly duties because of having to make a living to support us.  But my mother, my sister, and I all understood that it was a necessity and supported him.  This type of problem is not unique to a priest.

Maybe Cleveland could offer some insights into how to handle the delicate balance from his family experiences...  Or FrChris, who knows this issue first hand.

God bless,
Presbytera Mari
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2008, 07:38:20 PM »

There are at LEAST 8 different topics here that are mentioned but not explored or discussed... 
Not on this thread, but this subject has come up several times in other places. If you search, you can find them.

Quote
This thread is a meandering one that raises questions that are going unanswered and unexplored.  No one seems to be answering the previous poster, new objections or points are getting made which are NOT answers to objections or points previously made.
Welcome to the forum. Wink
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2008, 10:38:25 PM »

This thread is so depressing.

The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.

The Church notes that the practice is sanctioned by the New Testament.

(sic)

The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.

Ok, you didn't address the OP.  The Eastern Catholic churches have a long tradition of ordaining married men to the priesthood; the OP is objecting to the fact that the Roman representatives don't respect that in this country.

Priestly celibacy became law in the Church in the 6th century.

Wrong.  It became a practice in one part of the Church.  But "the Church" in the 6th Century was both East and West, and in the East it was not law that all men wishing to be deacons or priests must be celibate.  So it was not "law in the Church in the 6th century," since your statement is too broad.

But this is really beside the point of the question he was answering. The question was whether or not, since the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, there was still latinisation of the Eastern Churches. The answer has to be yes, by reason of the example, that Cardinal Ratzinger mandated clerical celibacy as a general rule for the Eastern Churches. This general rule allowed for some exceptions, but it was not in any way similar to what some of the Eastern Catholic Churches were asking for. They were asking for an abrogation of the general rule of celibacy as it was applied to them, and the answer from Cardinal Ratzinger was no. So the latinisation influence on the Eastern Catholic Churches has continued as is seen from this example. 

Addresses the OP exactly.

Your percieving a disagreement where there is none my friend.

Your wasting your breath. I have no gripe with Priests being married if they can serve daily Mass and attend the confessional and to the people, i.e. Do their jobs and then be there for their Children and Spouses as they should. I would ask you though, what happens if a dying person calls for the Priest when His kid falls and breaks an arm?

I just think its better that they aren't both because Saint Paul said it was better. There should be nothing found condecending about the Gospel unless your in love with your passions and wish to deny what it says. Want the quotes?

The fact remains, there is no denial of both married and validly ordained priests though at the same time the Holy Gospel and ancient practice of the Church logically endorces that which provides for a singularly pastoral vocation.

The difficulties of sheparding a flock of believers and a flock of kids simultaneously is obvious don't you think? Stop making it about the Church when its clearly about a personal dicipline. If you want to be a married priest go be one, no one is going to stop you if you think you can handle two vocations at once. 

*Sigh* - I'm glad you have no problem with married men becoming priests, because your Church does, and they're trying to force their traditional practice on churches to which mandatory clerical celibacy is alien (and THAT's the point of the thread).  It is latinization, since mandatory celibacy is a Latin thing; the Eastern Churches are "Eastern" not "Western," and although they are in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they should be allowed to maintain their ancient practices.  Now, in Europe, they are allowed to ordain married men as priests; but the OP is pointing out that in America the papal representatives are denying that same right to the Eastern Catholics.

Since you brought it up - yes, shepherding a flock and children is more difficult than only one or the other.  I know firsthand, as the son of a priest of many years (he was ordained before my birth), and as one who will be getting married soon and possibly ordained shortly afterward.  However, experience and study have shown me that it is not only possible to be a good priest and good father, it is very attainable.  What about the whole "if you had the faith the size of a mustard seed you could say to this mountain 'go there' and it would move?"  I don't know about you, but moving a mountain is much more difficult than shepherding 10 flocks and fathering 20 children.  That's the point - no one is able without the help and strength of others (especially God's) to be a good priest, or a good father, or both.

However, your points about it being "about personal discipline," and not about the Church are irrelevant to the OP, which deals with consistency and justice and hypocrisy.

BTW: It is "about the Church," since mandatory clerical celibacy has been discussed at multiple Ecumenical Councils; and in the midst of many debates amongst many saintly fathers of the Church, only the bishops are required to come from the ranks of celibate men, not the priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, cantors, doorkeepers, etc.

=============================================================

So let's discuss the point:

Why are the Orthodox wary of unity with Rome?  Why do we not feel like an agreement could be reached when acknowledging the Pope as Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops, etc?  Because we see the encroachment of Papal discipline where it was never intended to go, and where they have agreed (important point) to not go.  It was part of the agreement with the Eastern Churches that they be allowed to ordain married men to the priesthood.  In some parts of the world, this is still permitted (and thank goodness for that).  In some parts of the world (the OP mentions America) it is being stifled.  Why?  Why go against the agreement?  Why encroach where it was promised not to encroach?  Why should we trust Rome with much (the whole Eastern Orthodox Church) when it is obvious that the situation over a little (the Eastern Catholic Churches - no offense intended with the "little" comment, btw - you're full Churches; I'm just referring to population) isn't being handled properly?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2008, 12:13:44 AM »

Why are the Orthodox wary of unity with Rome?  ...  Because we see the encroachment of Papal discipline where it was never intended to go, and where they have agreed (important point) to not go.  It was part of the agreement with the Eastern Churches that they be allowed to ordain married men to the priesthood.  ... Why go against the agreement?  Why encroach where it was promised not to encroach?  ...
Good questions.
Logged
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2008, 10:45:16 AM »

This thread is so depressing.

Ok, you didn't address the OP.  The Eastern Catholic churches have a long tradition of ordaining married men to the priesthood; the OP is objecting to the fact that the Roman representatives don't respect that in this country.

Wrong.  It became a practice in one part of the Church.  But "the Church" in the 6th Century was both East and West, and in the East it was not law that all men wishing to be deacons or priests must be celibate.  So it was not "law in the Church in the 6th century," since your statement is too broad.

Addresses the OP exactly.

*Sigh* - I'm glad you have no problem with married men becoming priests, because your Church does, and they're trying to force their traditional practice on churches to which mandatory clerical celibacy is alien (and THAT's the point of the thread).  It is latinization, since mandatory celibacy is a Latin thing; the Eastern Churches are "Eastern" not "Western," and although they are in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they should be allowed to maintain their ancient practices.  Now, in Europe, they are allowed to ordain married men as priests; but the OP is pointing out that in America the papal representatives are denying that same right to the Eastern Catholics.

Since you brought it up - yes, shepherding a flock and children is more difficult than only one or the other.  I know firsthand, as the son of a priest of many years (he was ordained before my birth), and as one who will be getting married soon and possibly ordained shortly afterward.  However, experience and study have shown me that it is not only possible to be a good priest and good father, it is very attainable.  What about the whole "if you had the faith the size of a mustard seed you could say to this mountain 'go there' and it would move?"  I don't know about you, but moving a mountain is much more difficult than shepherding 10 flocks and fathering 20 children.  That's the point - no one is able without the help and strength of others (especially God's) to be a good priest, or a good father, or both.

However, your points about it being "about personal discipline," and not about the Church are irrelevant to the OP, which deals with consistency and justice and hypocrisy.

BTW: It is "about the Church," since mandatory clerical celibacy has been discussed at multiple Ecumenical Councils; and in the midst of many debates amongst many saintly fathers of the Church, only the bishops are required to come from the ranks of celibate men, not the priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, cantors, doorkeepers, etc.

=============================================================

So let's discuss the point:

Why are the Orthodox wary of unity with Rome?  Why do we not feel like an agreement could be reached when acknowledging the Pope as Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops, etc?  Because we see the encroachment of Papal discipline where it was never intended to go, and where they have agreed (important point) to not go.  It was part of the agreement with the Eastern Churches that they be allowed to ordain married men to the priesthood.  In some parts of the world, this is still permitted (and thank goodness for that).  In some parts of the world (the OP mentions America) it is being stifled.  Why?  Why go against the agreement?  Why encroach where it was promised not to encroach?  Why should we trust Rome with much (the whole Eastern Orthodox Church) when it is obvious that the situation over a little (the Eastern Catholic Churches - no offense intended with the "little" comment, btw - you're full Churches; I'm just referring to population) isn't being handled properly?


Thank you, Cleveland.  As always, you are far more articulate and eloquent than I!
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
Tags: celibacy clerical celilbacy 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 62 queries.