FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A Father to his Flock: In Defense of Sacerdotal Celibacy.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Dear Friends, in this thread, please summarize the reasons why you think the Latin Church should not change Her discipline on Sacerdotal Celibacy and Clerical Continence. My article on 1P5: https://onepeterfive.com/a-father-to-his-flock-in-defense-of-priestly-celibacy/

[Image: franciscans-celibacy.jpg]

[b]A Father to His Flock: In Defense of Priestly Celibacy[/b]


Our Lady spoke to St. Bridget a divine warning that seems to be a message directly from Heaven to His Holiness Pope Francis:
Quote
Quote:Know this too: that if some Pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts[.] … For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end.”Our Lady told the Saint even Pope St. Gregory the Great would never have become a Saint, and in fact would have ended up losing his soul, if he was the one to overturn Celibacy.

Holy Father, are you listening? For us at 1P5 and throughout the traditional Catholic world, Catholic action to preserve clerical continence now becomes an urgent mission to save the pope’s soul.

Now, let’s look at some early Church canons that state that the norm of priestly celibacy and episcopal continence was established by the apostles and observed by antiquity itself.
Bishop Genethlius, according to the Council of Carthage (A.D. 390), says:

Quote
Quote:As was previously said, it is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites [meaning, Deacons]; i.e., those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, [b]observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God[/b]; what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep.

Several years prior, we have Canon 29 of the First Council of Arles (314):
Moreover, concerned with what is worthy, pure, and honest, we exhort our brothers in the episcopate to make sure that priests and deacons have no [sexual] relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry everyday. Whoever will act against this decision will be deposed from the honor of the clergy.”
In the Council of Elvira, (309), Canon 33 reads, “It has seemed good to absolutely forbid the bishops, the priests, and the deacons, i.e., all the clerics in the service of the sacred ministry, to have relations with their wives and procreate children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honor of the clergy.
Thus, St. Epiphanius, praising the strict observance of this canonical rule, says:
Quote
Quote:Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the deaconate, the priesthood or the episcopate, nor even to the subdeaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to.

St. Jerome says in his Letter to Pammachius, “Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.”
A careful study of the early Church Fathers will show they one and all highly praised celibacy as especially befitting priests in their ministry on the altar.
The Church came close to having a universal norm on celibacy even for simple priests, not merely bishops, at the Council of Nicaea.
Father William Saunders summarizes:
Quote
Quote:At the ecumenical Council of Nicea I (325), Bishop Hosius of Cordova proposed a decree mandating clerical celibacy, including for those clergy already married. Egyptian Bishop Paphnutius, unmarried himself, rose in protest, asserting that such a requirement would be too rigorous and imprudent. Rather, those members of the clergy already married should continue to be faithful to their wives, and those who were unmarried should personally decide whether or not to be celibate. As a consequence, no church-wide requirement for priests to be celibate was mandated. For the Western Church several popes decreed celibacy: Damasus I (384), Siricius (385), Innocent I (404), and Leo I (458). Local councils issued edicts imposing celibacy on the clergy: in Africa, Carthage (390, 401–19); in France, Orange (441) and Tours (461); and in Italy, Turin (398). By the time of Pope Leo I (d. 461), no bishop, priest, deacon, or subdeacon could be married. Nevertheless, the rules were not always as enforced as they should have been[.]
In the Eastern Church, a distinction was made between bishops and other clergy as to whether they had to be celibate. Emperor Justinian’s Code of Civil Law forbade anyone who had children or even nephews to be consecrated a bishop. The Council of Trullo (692) mandated that a bishop be celibate, and if he were married, he would have to separate from his wife before his consecration. Priests, deacons, and subdeacons were forbidden to marry after ordination, although they were to continue to fulfill their marital vows if married before ordination. These regulations still stand for most of the Eastern Churches.

However, as it turned out, it was decided by universal tradition (this is kept in both the Latin Rite and Eastern Catholic rites) that (1) bishops would be bound to perpetual continence (2); once ordained, a married priest, after the death of his wife, can never remarry; and (3) in Eastern Catholic rites (and rarely in the Western Latin rite), a married man, by dispensation, can be ordained. By principle bishops are exclusively chosen from perpetually continent men.
To conclude, let us heed the grave warning Our Lady gave St. Bridget so many centuries ago, that seems to have been specially intended for our time, when this venerable tradition — so highly extolled by the Church Fathers — is in great danger of being surrendered to a hedonistic age. The holy Fathers teach us that clerical celibacy is closely linked to the priest acting in persona Christi, that as minister of the Church and representative of her divine Spouse, he ought to preserve perfect chastity, so as to be able to be a father to his flock.
Our Lady concluded by telling St. Bridget that even Pope St. Gregory would have lost his soul — let those who believe that every word of the Pope is infallible also take note — “Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death” ([i]Revelations of St. Bridget[/i], Book VII, Chapter 10).
Let us pray for the pope that he doesn’t end up like that, and instead, like Pope St. Gregory, that he be a good and holy pope focused only on doing God’s Will for Holy Mother Church.
The Catholic Church allows marriage to the Eastern Catholic priests. So it cannot be a sin. It is more sacrificial, and more in imitation of Our Lord, and that is why it is held in high esteem, even among those who allow married priests.
From the CCC:

“1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in
force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from
among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and
priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these
priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.
Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern
Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the
Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already
received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.”
The Eastern Churches fell away from the way of perfection: http://tinyurl.com/yxcfbgn4
Does it matter what I think?

I'm a layman. I should not be asked to take on the responsibilities that our bishops are supposed to be doing. If I am, then why am I not the bishop?
(01-18-2020, 12:41 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]The Eastern Churches fell away from the way of perfection:  http://tinyurl.com/yxcfbgn4

Uh huh.

[Image: paisios.jpg]   [Image: serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fstnicholasgr....5c0c7df446][Image: serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Forthodoxwiki....1c25a9ffc9][Image: serveimage?url=http:%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot....0ec96c9296][Image: serveimage?url=http:%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot....a7c4949b29][Image: serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fblogs.ancient...af56a1ee06]
[Image: lg-9db1cdd7730429eb89cb206c5dcd173f.jpeg][Image: serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fwww.ncronline...7dd38d5539][Image: serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fremnantnewspa...7822166c83]
It's tragic to see how dependent the Latins are on private revelation for formulating their faith.

God would do the spiritual equivalent of gouging out the eyes, cutting out the tongue, amputating hands and feet of any pope who allowed what is clearly demanded by nature? No, this was not the Theotokos who revealed this to St. Bridget.  Either she had an overactive and melancholic imagination, or she received her revelation from the same entity as did Mohammed.  There is no necessity for priests to remain continent.  It is not possible to forbid marriage and procreation without condemning them as evil.  Latins words to the contrary are quite hollow.  Merely having nephews ought to ban one from orders?  So not only must one remain celibate, but also all their siblings?  Anyone with a rational brain can see this is nonsense.  And further, anyone with a rational brain could see that the Eastern practice would be not only wrong, but intolerable, if what St. Bridget heard was actually true.  No, these were lies from Satan, and it is blasphemous to attribute them to the mother of our God.  Anathema to you all.
Iirc, isn't there an Old Testament connection as to why priests take up celibacy? I thought it had something to do with the nature of the sacrifice, where priests in the old covenant need to abstain from sex the day before they can offer the sacrifice. And since Catholic priests offer the Mass daily, then if this is the case, taking a vow of celibacy would be pertinent to this requirement.

I will agree that citing a private revelation does nothing to help the argument, but I also think it's anathema to blaspheme the saints by calling Church-verified visions satanic.
(01-18-2020, 03:22 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2020, 12:41 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]The Eastern Churches fell away from the way of perfection:  http://tinyurl.com/yxcfbgn4

Uh huh.

Just because you don't have all the same problems as us doesn't make you right.
(01-18-2020, 04:58 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]Iirc, isn't there an Old Testament connection as to why priests take up celibacy? I thought it had something to do with the nature of the sacrifice, where priests in the old covenant need to abstain from sex the day before they can offer the sacrifice. And since Catholic priests offer the Mass daily, then if this is the case, taking a vow of celibacy would be pertinent to this requirement.

I will agree that citing a private revelation does nothing to help the argument,  but I also think it's anathema to blaspheme the saints by calling Church-verified visions satanic.


That's the same practice as in the East.  No relations the night before the Eucharist. Not only for the clergy, but the laity as well.  It's not because the one precludes the other, but because you fast from the foreshadowing for the sake of what it foreshadows, and is ultimately better.

Not all Catholic priests celebrate a liturgy every day.  Even in large parishes that did have a daily liturgy, there's no reason married priests couldn't take turns.  Just as the Levites had service periods - several weeks a year, I think?

As far as condemning the vision.  I'm just asking you to think about it logically.  If that vision really was from God, and merely allowing married men to be priests would send the Pope to hell, then that would mean that the Eastern practice could not be tolerated, right? The act of being ordained to the priesthood as a married man would be a mortal sin, right?  And yet, it is a practice approved and accepted by the Church. So either the Church has rightly accepted the practice, and the vision must therefore be false.  Or the vision is true, and for centuries the Church has sanctioned mortal sin.  In this case, allowing married men to be ordained would be as grave an evil as allowing two people of the same sex to be married.  Is believing that the Church has condoned and mandated mortal sin preferable to believing this one vision was a false revelation?
(01-18-2020, 03:22 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2020, 12:41 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]The Eastern Churches fell away from the way of perfection:  http://tinyurl.com/yxcfbgn4

Uh huh.
 
A gorillion pictures of kindly-faced, bearded men won't disprove that the Eastern Churches fell away from the way of perfection. That the Western priesthood has been overtaken in large part by homosexualists since VII doesn't mean that the Eastern Church didn't fall away from the way of perfection. 

We need a restoration, not a further falling away.


*How many of the men in the pictures you posted are celibate?
Pages: 1 2 3 4