New Information About Anglicans Coming In
#61
(10-25-2009, 10:18 PM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: If anyone cares to learn about the true traditional view of celibacy in the Catholic Church please read the following;

www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celibacy_for_deacons.htm

Please note the article discusses deacons but applies even more so to priests.

The article explicitly denies the Gospel (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:18) and want us to believe that once the eartly limited militant church bond something, it is bond forever. Jesus Christ gave to His Church binding and loosing power, and the practice of the Eastern Churches (approved for the united Eastern Catholics in the 17th Century) is the proof that the celibacy is not absolute requirement for the priesthood.

The divorce as problem is misunderstanding, marriage cannot be dissolved, only the separation from bed and table is allowed, and this does not allows remarriage. Also the traditional rule is that married priest could be ordained, but ordained priest could not marry, neither first time nor after being widowed.

Hopefully the first step will be allow Anglican Catholic groups to ordain married men to priesthood, together with that to loose the 1924 declaration which forbade married priest in the Western countries, let the original practices to extend here too, and afterward the understanding that married priest are much better than no priest or homosexual priests.
Reply
#62
Harlequin King said,
"There is no reason to believe a traditional Catholic married priest would get a divorce..."

Under the spirit of Vatican II there is no telling what additional novelties will occur, as no one can deny that novelties already have occurred.

Jovan,
Thank you for your pronouncement that my question regarding future Anglican/Protestant/Catholic married priests getting divorced was stupid - I didn't realize that you are the Grand Poobah of common sense. And where did I get the idea that the TAC clergy can divorce and remarry? Could it be from your prior post below?

"There are going to be a few problems, however. The presiding "Bishop" of the Traditional Anglican Communion, who has been leading the discussions with Rome, is a DIVORCED (emphasis mine) and REMARRIED man, for example."

Oh yes, I know, he is "willing to admit that he is" (big of him seeing as it is an undeniable fact), and "will remain just a layman".


We'll see how this all plays out regarding the TAC married clergy becoming married Catholic priests and whether they will divorce and remarry.  And if enough of them do it whether the spirit of Vatican II will make an accomodation for that "tradition" also?
Reply
#63
(10-24-2009, 11:31 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote: I am married (nearly two years) and I too would become a priest in a second if there could be married priests, however, I still feel that this is something that shouldn't come so close to the latin rite, and an Anglican prelature would be, IMO, too close to the latin rite.

Obviously, the idea of married priests in the eastern rites is completely normal and traditional, but, east is east and and west is west and the wrong one I have chose.  :laughing:
I tend to agree. Anglican is West, no two ways about it. I am happy for Anglicans to retain their existing married priests but new starters in the priesthood should be required to be celibate. Marriage and priesthood is just too much on any one person. He ends up the father of two families and his attention is divided. I once saw a film about a man who had two families in different cities. He spent his time travelling between cities to try to keep both families happy. He had two homes, with himself in the photos of two families. His life was an impossible juggling act. In the end he was discovered by chance when one of the children saw him in a photo with another family. How do you like that?
In these days of a shortage of priests I feel that there is a large pool of late 40-somethings who have had a solid background in the faith and who have basically finished their child-rearing responsibilities who could do the short course for priests and put in a good 20-30 years in the priesthood. In an aging population with men living longer than normal there may be a case for pushing back the retirement age of priests and allowing older married christians to be ordained into the priesthood.
Young men who desire a vocation in the priesthood will still be advantaged because they will be able to aspire to the office of bishop which their married counterparts will be prevented from.
Reply
#64
(10-25-2009, 09:34 PM)FrancisB Wrote: I am baffled by the idea that anyone would refuse to attend a mass said by an orthodox, holy priest who happened to be married.  This is just plainly wrong-headed.  And I'm all for retaining celibacy in the Western church.  I made my objections to relaxing the norm quite clear earlier in the thread.  But the truth is that there is a tradition of married clergy inside the Catholic Church.  There were married priests in the early church.  Both East and West maintained a married clergy into the mediaeval period.  The East never abandoned this tradition and there are plenty of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.  To reject the authenticity of the married priesthood is to suggest, as many have before, that the Eastern Churches should have been forced to adopt Roman customs.  Nevertheless, the Church (and this was before the advent of Modernism) decided to allow the Eastern Churches to retain the married priesthood.  What gives any of us the right to criticise the ancient customs of the East when they have been accepted by the West since the early church?  Celibacy is a rule, not a dogma.  It can be changed.  I pray it is not changed in the West, but if it is, I will not cry "Protestantism!"  I will remain humbly obedient to the wisdom of those who know better than I.  And I will understand this is terms of the tradition of Holy Mother Church: a tradition that was preserved unbroken in the East.

Awesome post, I couldn't agree more!  While I don't think there is any reason to abandon the tradition of a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church, I have never understood why so many Latin Catholics see a married priesthood and a celibate priesthood as being something contradictory rather than complimentary.  In fact, it might be helpful in the Latin Church to allow married priests as assistant priests, while requiring the pastor of a parish be celibate.  But that's just an idea.  It also might be a good idea for the Eastern churches as well.  But now I'm just rambling ;)
Reply
#65
(10-26-2009, 12:20 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(10-25-2009, 05:37 PM)Magdalene Wrote: HK, I am surprised at you. Are you saying that the priesthood should be reduced to a job and so easy on the time that the Holy Sacrifice would only 'have' to be offered twice a week and once on Sunday?
No! and again, No!  A priest SHOULD want to offer the greatest prayer, the greatest act that occurs on earth each day-namely the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-every day of his life and priesthood.

I don't know why you chose to read an anti-Mass element into my post. But drawing Father Phillips as an example, he quadrinates; that is, celebrates Mass four times in one day on Sundays. A priest should never have to say so many Masses. In fact, one a day is the norm, and in previous times, bination was considered an exception. Trination was reserved only for certain days like All Souls'.

I have more of an oratory mindset for all churches. I believe that if priests celebrated fewer Masses individually, they would have more time to assist at solemn Masses and sing the hours of the Divine Office in common, rather than pray them alone from a book which is now the norm.

Quote:I desire Holy Mass every day of my life. I expect  nothing less from a priest.  If there are several priests in a parish, then there should be several Mass times offered a day for the faithful.
What do you think?

I am certainly not opposed to daily Mass. But it does not have to be by the same priest every day. A priest is obligated to pray the Office every day, but not the Mass. I want the Office to again become a regular element of parish life.

I agree with everything you said, HK, but even though you might not have the same priest celebrate Mass publicly, every priest ought to offer a daily Mass at least privately.  Even though priests are not obliged to, not saying Mass at every chance (i.e. daily) is like refusing to let someone deliver a chest of gold to your doorstep daily because you don't feel like answering the door.  The only difference is that the graces available at every Mass are far more valuable than any worldly treasure.
Reply
#66
(10-26-2009, 11:11 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(10-25-2009, 09:34 PM)FrancisB Wrote: I am baffled by the idea that anyone would refuse to attend a mass said by an orthodox, holy priest who happened to be married.  This is just plainly wrong-headed.  And I'm all for retaining celibacy in the Western church.  I made my objections to relaxing the norm quite clear earlier in the thread.  But the truth is that there is a tradition of married clergy inside the Catholic Church.  There were married priests in the early church.  Both East and West maintained a married clergy into the mediaeval period.  The East never abandoned this tradition and there are plenty of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.  To reject the authenticity of the married priesthood is to suggest, as many have before, that the Eastern Churches should have been forced to adopt Roman customs.  Nevertheless, the Church (and this was before the advent of Modernism) decided to allow the Eastern Churches to retain the married priesthood.  What gives any of us the right to criticise the ancient customs of the East when they have been accepted by the West since the early church?  Celibacy is a rule, not a dogma.  It can be changed.  I pray it is not changed in the West, but if it is, I will not cry "Protestantism!"  I will remain humbly obedient to the wisdom of those who know better than I.  And I will understand this is terms of the tradition of Holy Mother Church: a tradition that was preserved unbroken in the East.

Awesome post, I couldn't agree more!  While I don't think there is any reason to abandon the tradition of a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church, I have never understood why so many Latin Catholics see a married priesthood and a celibate priesthood as being something contradictory rather than complimentary.  In fact, it might be helpful in the Latin Church to allow married priests as assistant priests, while requiring the pastor of a parish be celibate.  But that's just an idea.  It also might be a good idea for the Eastern churches as well.  But now I'm just rambling ;)

I tend to agree the eastern rite has had married clergy and so did the latin in the first millenium.
Reply
#67
(10-26-2009, 12:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: I agree with everything you said, HK, but even though you might not have the same priest celebrate Mass publicly, every priest ought to offer a daily Mass at least privately. 

I had thought briefly of mentioning the private Mass, but I didn't want to confuse the issue.

I think a married priest can say a private Mass daily at a side altar, at an unspecified time of day (i.e. pretty much whenever he feels like it or when time allows). That's a very late medieval thing to do.



Oh, as for the OP and the comment by "Archbishop" Hepworth about extending the married priesthood to all Anglican use laymen, it's my impression from Father Phillips' blog that he thinks Mr. Hepworth is over-speculating. While it wouldn't surprise me if Pope Benedict did allow such a thing, there is nothing from Rome as of yet which suggests such a radical move will be made.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)