OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 11:12:11 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 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: priest question  (Read 2030 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2012, 08:06:38 PM »

 Right now, married priests could be damaging to an already damaged Church, a risk not worth taking at the moment.
How would married priests be damaging to the RC Church?

It will create divisions within an already divided Church.  The SSPX will be forever out of communion, and traditionalists in communion (FSSP, ICRSS, etc) will refuse married priests just as they already do married deacons, of course acknowledging their orders and place in other parts of church to be politically correct.  They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church, which they largely already are; this would damage all the headway the Pope has given to traditionalism.  Which major groups are calling for married clergy within the Roman Catholic Church?  The same ones which are calling for female clergy, gay marriage, open communion, etc.  It will only open a larger can of worms, giving them the impression that Rome is heeding their desires.  And of course economic reasons, but this is right in line with Roman teaching.  If you cannot financially support a marriage and family, then chances are God is not calling you to do so.  Likewise, if a Church cannot support many families, then God is probably not calling it to do so.  

Notice I said could be damaging.  It doesn't mean it would be, but is not worth the risk.
Was it worth the risk to have all of the other changes such as granting marriage annulments to almost everyone who wants one?
There are already married priests in the Catholic Church and I don't see where this has created any problems. If Our Divine Lord and Savior chose a married man (St. Peter) to the the first Pope of the Catholic Church, how dare anyone think that what Our Divine Lord had done was in any way damaging to the Catholic Church?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2012, 10:04:49 AM »

I would imagine he could potentially serve under an Eastern Rite. Under Latin Rite, I wouldn't think so.

I know of an Episcopal priest who could not serve because he was married when he converted to Roman Catholic.

Had he began Catholic at some earlier point in his life, or was he converting to the RCC for the first time?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #47 on: February 20, 2012, 10:08:02 AM »

Of course this is probably just a theoretical question. I assume that all of our WR clergy have made an explicit decision to not to join the RCC since that would be a lot easier option than WRO.

Well, you never know. I'm thinking of a certain ex-Anglican (many of you might know him) who became an RC priest, but then later became an EO priest. It's not unthinkable that someone might go the other way, i.e. become an EO priest but then later become an RC priest.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #48 on: February 20, 2012, 10:17:23 AM »

What about WRO? Are they enrolled in Eastern Catholic churches?

Good question. In principle, if someone in the Antiochian Orthodox Church who is WRO converts to Catholicism, he/she should be enrolled in the Melkite Church -- since the Melkite Church is a Church not a Rite. In practice, I can't say what happens.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #49 on: February 20, 2012, 10:22:41 AM »

I would imagine he could potentially serve under an Eastern Rite. Under Latin Rite, I wouldn't think so.

I know of an Episcopal priest who could not serve because he was married when he converted to Roman Catholic.
In the Diocese of Shreveport, a former Methodist minister who is married serves as a priest under the Latin Church's pastoral provision, or so I am told by my Catholic acquaintance who is in the discernment process for the priesthood.

Interesting. You don't usually hear about the provision being applied to former Methodists.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2012, 11:05:07 AM »

Well, there's not only that. If they switch to a married priesthood, the first time someone gets caught having an affair or gets divorced, boy are we not going to hear the end of it.

Gosh, I hadn't thought of that. :eek: You're right, we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2012, 02:38:52 PM »

I have heard the argument that the mandatory celibate priesthood in the RCC was implemented in part in order to protect church property and money.
I imagine it's still a large reason they stick to it today.  Remember the RCC is one of the world's largest real estate owners.  Not so much in order of pure land but in buildings, housing, churches, schools, hospitals, etc...
Logged

Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2012, 08:58:22 PM »

 Right now, married priests could be damaging to an already damaged Church, a risk not worth taking at the moment.
How would married priests be damaging to the RC Church?

It will create divisions within an already divided Church.  The SSPX will be forever out of communion, and traditionalists in communion (FSSP, ICRSS, etc) will refuse married priests just as they already do married deacons, of course acknowledging their orders and place in other parts of church to be politically correct.  They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church, which they largely already are; this would damage all the headway the Pope has given to traditionalism.  Which major groups are calling for married clergy within the Roman Catholic Church?  The same ones which are calling for female clergy, gay marriage, open communion, etc.  It will only open a larger can of worms, giving them the impression that Rome is heeding their desires.  And of course economic reasons, but this is right in line with Roman teaching.  If you cannot financially support a marriage and family, then chances are God is not calling you to do so.  Likewise, if a Church cannot support many families, then God is probably not calling it to do so.  

Notice I said could be damaging.  It doesn't mean it would be, but is not worth the risk.
Was it worth the risk to have all of the other changes such as granting marriage annulments to almost everyone who wants one?
There are already married priests in the Catholic Church and I don't see where this has created any problems. If Our Divine Lord and Savior chose a married man (St. Peter) to the the first Pope of the Catholic Church, how dare anyone think that what Our Divine Lord had done was in any way damaging to the Catholic Church?

None of the reasons I listed have ANYTHING to do with what our Lord did, nor are they theological.  I never once said married priests are inherently damaging to the Church.  When I said "They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church", I was referring to traditionalist groups, not married clergy.

Keep in mind St. Peter was a bishop.  Do you see any married Bishops in Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  No.  Compare to the married espiscopacy of the Anglican Church.  "How dare the Catholic Church think itself better than our Lord" is probably not the attitude to have with regards to this, either. 
Logged
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2012, 09:04:33 PM »

I have heard the argument that the mandatory celibate priesthood in the RCC was implemented in part in order to protect church property and money.
I imagine it's still a large reason they stick to it today.  Remember the RCC is one of the world's largest real estate owners.  Not so much in order of pure land but in buildings, housing, churches, schools, hospitals, etc...

This is probably said by the same people that say the Vatican controls 99.9% of the world's wealth.

You don't have to find some ancient document or elaborate conspiracy or priest's wives scandals.  Ask any good Roman Catholic priest if they prefer married or celibate life.  The vast majority will tell you celibate.  Perhaps there's something to this.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2012, 09:31:03 PM »

 Right now, married priests could be damaging to an already damaged Church, a risk not worth taking at the moment.
How would married priests be damaging to the RC Church?

It will create divisions within an already divided Church.  The SSPX will be forever out of communion, and traditionalists in communion (FSSP, ICRSS, etc) will refuse married priests just as they already do married deacons, of course acknowledging their orders and place in other parts of church to be politically correct.  They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church, which they largely already are; this would damage all the headway the Pope has given to traditionalism.  Which major groups are calling for married clergy within the Roman Catholic Church?  The same ones which are calling for female clergy, gay marriage, open communion, etc.  It will only open a larger can of worms, giving them the impression that Rome is heeding their desires.  And of course economic reasons, but this is right in line with Roman teaching.  If you cannot financially support a marriage and family, then chances are God is not calling you to do so.  Likewise, if a Church cannot support many families, then God is probably not calling it to do so.  

Notice I said could be damaging.  It doesn't mean it would be, but is not worth the risk.
Was it worth the risk to have all of the other changes such as granting marriage annulments to almost everyone who wants one?
There are already married priests in the Catholic Church and I don't see where this has created any problems. If Our Divine Lord and Savior chose a married man (St. Peter) to the the first Pope of the Catholic Church, how dare anyone think that what Our Divine Lord had done was in any way damaging to the Catholic Church?

None of the reasons I listed have ANYTHING to do with what our Lord did, nor are they theological.  I never once said married priests are inherently damaging to the Church.  When I said "They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church", I was referring to traditionalist groups, not married clergy.

Keep in mind St. Peter was a bishop.  Do you see any married Bishops in Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  No.  Compare to the married espiscopacy of the Anglican Church.  "How dare the Catholic Church think itself better than our Lord" is probably not the attitude to have with regards to this, either. 
There have been married bishops in the Catholic church and it was not damaging to the Church, as far as I know. Can you show how in any way, it was damaging to the Church to have had married bishops or married priests?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2012, 09:41:12 PM »

None of the reasons I listed have ANYTHING to do with what our Lord did, nor are they theological.  I never once said married priests are inherently damaging to the Church.  When I said "They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church", I was referring to traditionalist groups, not married clergy.

Keep in mind St. Peter was a bishop.  Do you see any married Bishops in Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  No.  Compare to the married espiscopacy of the Anglican Church.  "How dare the Catholic Church think itself better than our Lord" is probably not the attitude to have with regards to this, either.  

The Anglican Church Communion certainly has many problems (and I think I'm more keenly aware of them than most people who talk about them on this forum) but I doubt they can be traced to having a married episcopacy. Your point is less than clear.

The Continuing Anglican churches have a married episcopacy too, btw. So does the Polish National Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 09:42:58 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2012, 11:04:09 PM »

 Right now, married priests could be damaging to an already damaged Church, a risk not worth taking at the moment.
How would married priests be damaging to the RC Church?

It will create divisions within an already divided Church.  The SSPX will be forever out of communion, and traditionalists in communion (FSSP, ICRSS, etc) will refuse married priests just as they already do married deacons, of course acknowledging their orders and place in other parts of church to be politically correct.  They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church, which they largely already are; this would damage all the headway the Pope has given to traditionalism.  Which major groups are calling for married clergy within the Roman Catholic Church?  The same ones which are calling for female clergy, gay marriage, open communion, etc.  It will only open a larger can of worms, giving them the impression that Rome is heeding their desires.  And of course economic reasons, but this is right in line with Roman teaching.  If you cannot financially support a marriage and family, then chances are God is not calling you to do so.  Likewise, if a Church cannot support many families, then God is probably not calling it to do so.  

Notice I said could be damaging.  It doesn't mean it would be, but is not worth the risk.
Was it worth the risk to have all of the other changes such as granting marriage annulments to almost everyone who wants one?
There are already married priests in the Catholic Church and I don't see where this has created any problems. If Our Divine Lord and Savior chose a married man (St. Peter) to the the first Pope of the Catholic Church, how dare anyone think that what Our Divine Lord had done was in any way damaging to the Catholic Church?

None of the reasons I listed have ANYTHING to do with what our Lord did, nor are they theological.  I never once said married priests are inherently damaging to the Church.  When I said "They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church", I was referring to traditionalist groups, not married clergy.

Keep in mind St. Peter was a bishop.  Do you see any married Bishops in Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  No.  Compare to the married espiscopacy of the Anglican Church.  "How dare the Catholic Church think itself better than our Lord" is probably not the attitude to have with regards to this, either. 
There have been married bishops in the Catholic church and it was not damaging to the Church, as far as I know. Can you show how in any way, it was damaging to the Church to have had married bishops or married priests?

I am not a historian, so no, I cannot, but I'm sure someone knowledgeable on here can.  I will say though the decision to have celibate bishops is to have better bishops, not to prevent worse ones.  I should clarify that married Bishops are allowed in Orthodox Churches as long as they leave their wives (not divorce), but I'm not sure if this is or ever was common.

Again though, you are missing my point.  I am not saying married priests have been damaging, nor am I saying married priests are bad priests; I am saying introducing a married priesthood to the Roman Catholic Church could be damaging for said social/political/economic reasons.  I'm no authority on the matter, and the has been's are not of my concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy
Logged
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #57 on: February 20, 2012, 11:15:56 PM »

None of the reasons I listed have ANYTHING to do with what our Lord did, nor are they theological.  I never once said married priests are inherently damaging to the Church.  When I said "They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church", I was referring to traditionalist groups, not married clergy.

Keep in mind St. Peter was a bishop.  Do you see any married Bishops in Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  No.  Compare to the married espiscopacy of the Anglican Church.  "How dare the Catholic Church think itself better than our Lord" is probably not the attitude to have with regards to this, either.  

The Anglican Church Communion certainly has many problems (and I think I'm more keenly aware of them than most people who talk about them on this forum) but I doubt they can be traced to having a married episcopacy. Your point is less than clear.

The Continuing Anglican churches have a married episcopacy too, btw. So does the Polish National Catholic Church.

I didn't have a point.  But now that you mention it, it's probably the female episcopate.

The PNCC was formed for bogus reasons, and I am not surprised with the direction they've gone.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 11:24:26 PM by Scotty » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2012, 11:39:37 PM »

None of the reasons I listed have ANYTHING to do with what our Lord did, nor are they theological.  I never once said married priests are inherently damaging to the Church.  When I said "They will be scrutinized by the mainline Church", I was referring to traditionalist groups, not married clergy.

Keep in mind St. Peter was a bishop.  Do you see any married Bishops in Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  No.  Compare to the married espiscopacy of the Anglican Church.  "How dare the Catholic Church think itself better than our Lord" is probably not the attitude to have with regards to this, either.  

The Anglican Church Communion certainly has many problems (and I think I'm more keenly aware of them than most people who talk about them on this forum) but I doubt they can be traced to having a married episcopacy. Your point is less than clear.

The Continuing Anglican churches have a married episcopacy too, btw. So does the Polish National Catholic Church.

I didn't have a point.  But now that you mention it, it's probably the female episcopate.

Sadly, the trouble started well before the female episcopate. Keep in mind here that even the EC-USA and the Anglican Church of Canada (the two provinces of the Anglican Communion which have gone off the rails worst) didn't have any female bishops until 1989 and 1994, respectively. The Church of England still doesn't have any female bishops.

Female bishops are just one symptom of a disorder that began decades before.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 11:41:17 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #59 on: February 20, 2012, 11:42:48 PM »

The PNCC was formed for bogus reasons, and I am not surprised with the direction they've gone.

What direction would that be?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2012, 03:53:25 AM »

...I am saying introducing a married priesthood to the Roman Catholic Church could be damaging for said social/political/economic reasons.
I can just as easily say that introducing a married priesthood to the Roman Catholic Church could be highly beneficial for social/political/historical/cultural/ecumenical and religious reasons.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 03:54:49 AM by stanley123 » Logged
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2012, 02:48:38 PM »

The PNCC was formed for bogus reasons, and I am not surprised with the direction they've gone.

What direction would that be?

Joining the Anglican Communion, Old Catholics, etc, rejecting original sin, accepting contraception and divorce, optional private confession, and now seeking re-communion with Rome while keeping their ways.  In a nutshell, being convenient Catholics, a common direction of all breakaway churches.
Logged
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2012, 02:49:52 PM »

...I am saying introducing a married priesthood to the Roman Catholic Church could be damaging for said social/political/economic reasons.
I can just as easily say that introducing a married priesthood to the Roman Catholic Church could be highly beneficial for social/political/historical/cultural/ecumenical and religious reasons.

Ok.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2012, 03:14:47 PM »

The PNCC was formed for bogus reasons, and I am not surprised with the direction they've gone.

What direction would that be?

Joining the Anglican Communion, Old Catholics, etc, rejecting original sin, accepting contraception and divorce, optional private confession, and now seeking re-communion with Rome while keeping their ways.  In a nutshell, being convenient Catholics, a common direction of all breakaway churches.

Just the opposite actually. The PNCC has been fighting against innovation. For example, they terminated their inter-communion with the Episcopal Church in the United States in 1978, in response to its decision to ordain women to the priesthood. Similarly, the PNCC is now no longer in full communion with the Old Catholics, owing mainly to the latter's decision to ordain women to the priesthood.

What's more, I believe it was mentioned on an earlier thread that the PNCC has rejected the filioque, Papal Infallibility, and Papal Supremacy.

Other than having married Bishops, the PNCC is very traditional.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 03:18:34 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2012, 03:44:29 PM »

Quote
hat's more, I believe it was mentioned on an earlier thread that the PNCC has rejected the filioque, Papal Infallibility, and Papal Supremacy.

Other than having married Bishops, the PNCC is very traditional.
I like em Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2012, 07:38:09 AM »

I also found this on Wikipedia:

Quote
Although the PNCC has entered into tentative negotiations with Orthodox Churches in North America, no union has resulted due to the PNCC's substantial adherence to the Catholic view of the sacraments and other issues.

Can anyone elaborate on that?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2012, 09:40:29 AM »

I also found this on Wikipedia:

Quote
Although the PNCC has entered into tentative negotiations with Orthodox Churches in North America, no union has resulted due to the PNCC's substantial adherence to the Catholic view of the sacraments and other issues.

Can anyone elaborate on that?

Totally unaware of such discussions.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2012, 01:05:17 PM »

I also found this on Wikipedia:

Quote
Although the PNCC has entered into tentative negotiations with Orthodox Churches in North America, no union has resulted due to the PNCC's substantial adherence to the Catholic view of the sacraments and other issues.

Can anyone elaborate on that?

Totally unaware of such discussions.

Weird because the PNCC doesn't have private confessions over about the age of 15.  They have a general confession during mass.  I wouldn't believe any of this hype.  In my experience the PNCC clergy could see the Orthodox priest turn around in his parking lot and call that a sign of communion.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.103 seconds with 51 queries.