Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Argument over Celibacy
#21
(05-30-2010, 06:57 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-30-2010, 06:23 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-30-2010, 01:53 PM)BlessedKarl Wrote:
(05-30-2010, 12:05 PM)Stubborn Wrote: They are not ex cathedra pronouncements, the popes are simply teaching that priests should be celibate.

Then why didn't they enforce that on the eastern rites? The popes you speak of were specifically referring to the latin rite.

That is a good question. I have no answer for you.

It seems pretty obvious, especially given it has been the constant teaching of the Church as related in those quotes from the popes, that clerical celibacy should be the universal rule.   

But that's just it.  It HASN'T been the constant teaching of the Church.  That's the answer.

But it HAS been the constant teaching of the Church - where / when does she teach otherwise?
Reply
#22
(05-30-2010, 07:06 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-30-2010, 06:57 PM)Melkite Wrote: But that's just it.  It HASN'T been the constant teaching of the Church.  That's the answer.

But it HAS been the constant teaching of the Church - where / when does she teach otherwise?

Umm, the first 500 years when it wasn't required anywhere in the Church?  The first 1000 years where it wasn't enforced anywhere in the Church?  Where are you getting that it has been the constant teaching of the Church?
Reply
#23
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 AD

This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.

There never has been any Church teaching that encourages clergy to marry. 
Reply
#24
(05-30-2010, 08:00 PM)Stubborn Wrote: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 AD

This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.

There never has been any Church teaching that encourages clergy to marry. 

So, to put this in context, the Church is forbidding any member of the clergy to be married.  And this is still kept faithfully, by both East and West.  What you are trying to construe this to mean, which it in fact is not at all what was meant, is that a married layman cannot be ordained a cleric.
Reply
#25
It means what it says. And it means the same today as it did back in the year 325.

Where does the Church teach that clerical matrimony is ok, allowable or otherwise taught and encouraged?
Reply
#26
(05-30-2010, 08:25 PM)Stubborn Wrote: It means what it says. And it means the same today as it did back in the year 325.

Where does the Church teach that clerical matrimony is ok, allowable or otherwise taught and encouraged?
  your right, it does mean exactly what it says, and it does mean the same thing now as it did in 325, and what it says is that no bishop, presbyter or deacon may have a woman brought in to live with him.  i.e., a man that is already a bishop, already a presbyter, or already a deacon.  this is what the Church, both east and west, hold this to mean.  if what they meant was mandatory clerical celibacy, then why didn't they say no married man may be ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate or episcopate?  they were quite able to say that if that is what they meant.  so, you are quite right when you say it means exactly what it says, but it doesn't say at all what you are trying to say it says.  where does the Church teach that clerical matrimony is ok or allowable?  it teaches it by its actions, by ordaining married men to the diaconate and the presbyterate for the past 2000 years.
Reply
#27
What church are you talking about?

Where does it say, plainly as the links I posted, that the Church teaches the ordination of married men are preferred or otherwise in some way encouraged or held in some type of esteem to join the priesthood?

 
Reply
#28
(05-30-2010, 09:45 PM)Stubborn Wrote: What church are you talking about?

Where does it say, plainly as the links I posted, that the Church teaches the ordination of married men are preferred or otherwise in some way encouraged or held in some type of esteem to join the priesthood?

 
  i never said the Church encouraged it, i said the Church allows it.  if it didn't allow it, and it didn't think it was tolerable, then let me ask you, why did the Church ordain married men at all if it taught that this wasn't to be allowed.  ordination is from the Church, it's not something any individual has a right to.  we know the Church does not allow women to be ordained.  how do we know this?  because it doesn't ordain women.  but it certainly does allow married men to be ordained, or there would be no ordained married men.  it's really that simple.
Reply
#29
(05-30-2010, 09:56 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-30-2010, 09:45 PM)Stubborn Wrote: What church are you talking about?

Where does it say, plainly as the links I posted, that the Church teaches the ordination of married men are preferred or otherwise in some way encouraged or held in some type of esteem to join the priesthood?

 
  i never said the Church encouraged it, i said the Church allows it.  if it didn't allow it, and it didn't think it was tolerable, then let me ask you, why did the Church ordain married men at all if it taught that this wasn't to be allowed.  ordination is from the Church, it's not something any individual has a right to.  we know the Church does not allow women to be ordained.  how do we know this?  because it doesn't ordain women.  but it certainly does allow married men to be ordained, or there would be no ordained married men.  it's really that simple.

Can you post Church teaching where She at least allows married men to be ordained?
Reply
#30
i was trying to find actual documents and then my computer crashed, so i have to do this from my phone.  look at the union of brest-litovsk, and the bulls of union from the councils of lyons and ferrara-florence.  each of these make reference to the eastern churches maintaing married clergy and that this would not be prohibited.  if it were necessary for clerics to be celibate, this could never have happened.  but from a practical standpoint, ask yourself, if a married clergy is not allowed by the Church, then how could the Church have ever ordained even one married man?  but even if one married man is ordained, then the Church must teach that there is nothing inherently prohibitive about ordaining married men.  but, to be clear, celibate clergy is preferable.  it just isn't always practical.  i kind of like the idea of allowing married men to be ordained priests to assist the pastor of a parish, and the pastor remain celibate, if the parish is big enough to support more than one priest.  this is how it works at my parish.  in a lot of mission parishes, though, the numbers aren't there to always make it practical to have a celibate priest.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)