OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 29, 2014, 01:21:46 AM *
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 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the married Chrisitans cannot be the priest?  (Read 4579 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,184



« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2013, 12:29:03 PM »

Why can't the married Christians be the priest in Catholic Church?

Because the Western Church has always had a perverted view of marriage.
Does it follow then that not allowing married bishops in the Eastern Church stems from a 'perverted view of marriage'?

Good question. (It's not that disagree with the conclusion that married men should be admitted to the priesthood; but I hate when people use an anti-western argument to get to that conclusion.)
The Vatican's treatment of those it has snatched from Orthodoxy in the East answers that question, Ea semper and all that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2013, 11:50:01 AM »

Why can't the married Christians be the priest in Catholic Church?

Because the Western Church has always had a perverted view of marriage.
Does it follow then that not allowing married bishops in the Eastern Church stems from a 'perverted view of marriage'?

Good question. (It's not that disagree with the conclusion that married men should be admitted to the priesthood; but I hate when people use an anti-western argument to get to that conclusion.)
I don't disagree that there is a place for married men in the priesthood, perhaps at the diocesan level. However, there is an intrinsic good in celibacy and devoting oneself to serving God and the parish without the added responsibilities of married life. With that being said, a married priest is just as capable and orthodox, and will prob take root in the Latin rite in some capacity in the next hundred years or so (my guess).
There is an (actually, several) intrinsic good in marriage.  A reason why it, and not celibacy, is a sacrament.
Yet celibacy is a requirement to be a bishop so surely there intrinsic goods in it as well that make one more suitable to pastor the Church as a bishop.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,859


"The grace of God has appeared..."


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 25, 2013, 01:47:55 PM »

Yet celibacy is a requirement to be a bishop so surely there intrinsic goods in it as well that make one more suitable to pastor the Church as a bishop.

While I'll defer to ialmisry wrt what he meant, I think it's important to make a distinction.  AFAIK, the requirement is not for a bishop to be "celibate", but a "monastic".  Obviously, celibate chastity is a part of the monastic life, but it's not because of that alone that we choose bishops from among the monks.  Monks lead lives of prayer, and we want people grounded in a life of prayer to hold such positions in the Church (e.g., there are canons requiring a candidate for ordination to have committed the Psalter to memory...that's not because rote memorisation of Scripture is a requirement, but rather because it means they are faithful to frequent and daily prayer).  Monks live in community, they know how to be obedient and also, if they've held office in a monastery, how to govern souls in obedience to them, they know how to manage the goods and properties of the community, etc., etc.  Inasmuch as a monastery is a microcosm of the Church, monastic experience is a good thing for bishops to have.  It's not just about avoiding "defilement" by women. 

When "celibacy" is severed from "monasticism", as the RC's have done, there are bound to be problems.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,184



« Reply #93 on: June 25, 2013, 01:50:20 PM »

Why can't the married Christians be the priest in Catholic Church?

Because the Western Church has always had a perverted view of marriage.
Does it follow then that not allowing married bishops in the Eastern Church stems from a 'perverted view of marriage'?

Good question. (It's not that disagree with the conclusion that married men should be admitted to the priesthood; but I hate when people use an anti-western argument to get to that conclusion.)
I don't disagree that there is a place for married men in the priesthood, perhaps at the diocesan level. However, there is an intrinsic good in celibacy and devoting oneself to serving God and the parish without the added responsibilities of married life. With that being said, a married priest is just as capable and orthodox, and will prob take root in the Latin rite in some capacity in the next hundred years or so (my guess).
There is an (actually, several) intrinsic good in marriage.  A reason why it, and not celibacy, is a sacrament.
Yet celibacy is a requirement to be a bishop so surely there intrinsic goods in it as well that make one more suitable to pastor the Church as a bishop.
If it were, Christ wouldn't have called married men as His Apostles-including "the Prince of the Apostles-nor would Scripture lay down in St. Paul's words that the bishop should be the husband of one wife.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,013



« Reply #94 on: June 25, 2013, 03:36:50 PM »

Yet celibacy is a requirement to be a bishop so surely there intrinsic goods in it as well that make one more suitable to pastor the Church as a bishop.

While I'll defer to ialmisry wrt what he meant, I think it's important to make a distinction.  AFAIK, the requirement is not for a bishop to be "celibate", but a "monastic".  Obviously, celibate chastity is a part of the monastic life, but it's not because of that alone that we choose bishops from among the monks.  Monks lead lives of prayer, and we want people grounded in a life of prayer to hold such positions in the Church (e.g., there are canons requiring a candidate for ordination to have committed the Psalter to memory...that's not because rote memorisation of Scripture is a requirement, but rather because it means they are faithful to frequent and daily prayer).  Monks live in community, they know how to be obedient and also, if they've held office in a monastery, how to govern souls in obedience to them, they know how to manage the goods and properties of the community, etc., etc.  Inasmuch as a monastery is a microcosm of the Church, monastic experience is a good thing for bishops to have.  It's not just about avoiding "defilement" by women. 

When "celibacy" is severed from "monasticism", as the RC's have done, there are bound to be problems.   

Actually, the only Ecumenical canons that we have set the standard at celibacy. Trullo (a) told married bishops to separate themselves from their wives if they wanted to continue being bishops and (b) told future bishops to do so before ordination. Theoretically, we have married bishops even today as in the case of priests whose wives had passed on and they were advanced to the episcopacy; my locum tenens, Archbishop Nikon of Boston is a case in point. I am saying this because I think our approach to Holy Matrimony is not "till death do us part" but for all eternity. In any case, it is also true that the practice in Eastern Orthodoxy has been to conflate celibacy and monasticism in two ways: first, select from amongst the monastics and you will likely have a person who is also celibate, and secondly, if the person is celibate but not a monastic, have him take at least the first vows--please note that no bishop is required to live in a monastery.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,734



« Reply #95 on: June 25, 2013, 04:08:09 PM »

I would think that the Priest had to be single & celibate.
Logged
mike
Moderated
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,599


« Reply #96 on: June 25, 2013, 05:33:11 PM »

In any case, it is also true that the practice in Eastern Orthodoxy has been to conflate celibacy and monasticism in two ways: first, select from amongst the monastics and you will likely have a person who is also celibate, and secondly, if the person is celibate but not a monastic, have him take at least the first vows--please note that no bishop is required to live in a monastery.

Unless you are Antiochian.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.059 seconds with 34 queries.