Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Argument over Celibacy
#41
(05-31-2010, 09:05 PM)Melkite Wrote: I accept that you're not trying to be obtuse.  But, at the same time, you seem to be unwilling to see anything other than the particular answer you want to be true.  I will have to look up the bulls of union from the councils of lyon and florence later, but for now, here are two questions for you to consider.  The first is new.  Yes, those were demands that the Ukrainian Church made to Rome in order to concede to union.  So the logical conclusion is, did Rome concede to those demands?  From history, we know that Rome did, or the Ukrainians would still be entirely in schism.  So the question you have to ask yourself is, if married clergy were contrary to the constant teaching of the Church, why did Rome accept this demand?  Rome has never conceded to the Greek understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit.  Rome has never conceded to the Greek understanding of papal primacy.  So if your understanding of the Church's teaching of married clergy were correct, how could Rome ever have conceded to this demand?

Consider me as one who lives in his own little world, or rather, in my own little pre-V2 world, happily ignorant of many things that may well be taught by the Church yet not expedient to my personal faith one way or another - I am asking to see some pre-V2 Church teaching showing that Rome conceded to the demand of married clerics.

Thus far, I have not seen it - -all I have seen is a person saying that the Church accepts it - which obviously contradicts the teachings I have posted.............certainly you can agree with me here. 

(05-31-2010, 09:05 PM)Melkite Wrote: The second question is one I have already asked and you have yet to acknowlege, much less attempt to answer.  You are saying that the Roman Church has never taught that married clergy is allowed.  If this is true, how then do you explain the fact that the Church has ordained married men to the clergy for its entire existance?  If it was contrary to Church teaching, it would be impossible for the Church to ever ordain a married man, much less accept an ordination of a married man.  The principle here is that the sacrament of Ordination comes from the Church.  She dispenses the graces of Holy Orders as she sees fit.  If she does not see fit to allow a married man to be ordained, she does not ordain him.  And yet we know that the Church has ordained married men, and still ordains married men.  So, how do you explain the Church willfully ordaining married men if it is contrary to her own teaching?

Again, remember I live in my own pre-V2 world and other than you saying that the Church willfully ordains married men, you have yet to show me where the Church actually teaches this....................when (if) you finally do show us the Church teaches that ordinations to the priesthood of married men is indeed a teaching of the Church, then you (and I) will also then need to agree that it contradicts the Church's constant teachings as taught from popes that I have already posted - agreed?
Reply
#42
i take it back, you are being obtuse.  you haven't posted any teachings of the Church that you have correctly interpreted.  for example, the canons of nicea that you offered as proof of your view, i already demolished your interpretation of that.  as far as the Church ordaining married priests, that alone is sufficient proof that the Church allows it.  are you next going to demand that i provide papal encyclicals teaching that the sky is blue before you pull your head out of your pre-v2 ass and see that the sky is indeed blue?  so i can't agree with you that the councils of lyons and florence contradict your understanding of Church teaching because you've already shown your understanding of it false.  instead of me showing you pre-v2 documents that show Rome tolerated married clergy, maybe you show me why you feel you have the authority to disregard both the catechism and the eastern canon law.  is it because you aren't really Catholic, but rather a zealot of sedevacantism?
Reply
#43
(06-01-2010, 02:03 AM)Melkite Wrote: i take it back, you are being obtuse.  you haven't posted any teachings of the Church that you have correctly interpreted.  for example, the canons of nicea that you offered as proof of your view, i already demolished your interpretation of that.  as far as the Church ordaining married priests, that alone is sufficient proof that the Church allows it.  are you next going to demand that i provide papal encyclicals teaching that the sky is blue before you pull your head out of your pre-v2 ass and see that the sky is indeed blue?  so i can't agree with you that the councils of lyons and florence contradict your understanding of Church teaching because you've already shown your understanding of it false.  instead of me showing you pre-v2 documents that show Rome tolerated married clergy, maybe you show me why you feel you have the authority to disregard both the catechism and the eastern canon law.  is it because you aren't really Catholic, but rather a zealot of sedevacantism?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g....htm#par11

Now, however, We want you to rally to combat the abominable conspiracy against clerical celibacy. This conspiracy spreads daily and is promoted by profligate philosophers, some even from the clerical order..........

I'm not being obtuse, I am trying to see why on the one hand, the Church teaches that it is not only an "abominable conspiracy" to be against clerical celibacy, but that conspiracy is spreading.....on the other hand, you say the Church does not teach that.

How am I misinterpreting that?

I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking to see where the Church teaches what you say.

You calling me a sede is not only wrong, it also does not show that the Church ever "gave in" to the demands to the "Treaty Of Brest Document" that you posted or changed Her teachings as posted by me. 

There is also no need to insult me with childish bullying, rather use your energy to actually post something, anything supporting your presumptions that the church revoked it's teaching regarding clerical celibacy.
Reply
#44
ok, i think i see where your confusion is coming from.  sorry about the sede comment, but the way you disregarded official catholic documents, i didn't see another way around that.  but, seriously, just because they came from the post-v2 era doesn't mean they are wrong or not authoritative.  correct me if i'm wrong, but a papal encyclical is not doctrine, but basically the opinions of a pope on a given topic.  so, certainly you can agree that the catechism trumps a papal encyclical, which is the only thing you've shown as evidence for your argument.  as far as the evidence you are looking for, from the way you worded your last post, i think you're expecting to find a teaching about the nature of married clergy.  i'm not going to be able to find you any document, because no such teaching exists.  the teaching is that clerical celibacy is preferred, and this is what the papal encyclicals you offered have shown.  the union of brest wasn't about teaching, but practice.  so when the church teaches about the nature of holy orders, it says that celibacy is to be preferred; it's a better fit.  but in practice, the church allows married clergy because there is nothing inherently contrary to the nature of holy orders about marriage.  so the only thing i can show you is allowances of the practice of ordaining married men.  but that's not what you want because you are looking for a teaching.  so, i guess the only direction i can point you in now is this: look at all the teachings about the nature of holy orders.  you will find plenty that say celibacy is better.  you won't find one that teaches holy orders and marriage are mutually exclusive.  you would need to find that to prove your point from a teaching perspective.
Reply
#45
I disregard all V2 documents that contradict or otherwise imply contradictions of the teachings from the Perennial Magisterium of the Church - so far, based on the links you posted earlier, it appears to be the case once again. As I said, I base that opinion on your links where the NO applauded the whole idea.

I have never understood the whole East / West Church thing and I have never really pursued understanding it very much.

Encyclicals are not doctrine, yet, depending on the subject matter, the pope writes it for the solitary purpose of clarifying, echoing and/or enforcing what the Church teaches, particularly in regards to matters of concern at the time. 

To me, it boils down to me reading the Church teachings against married clergy, but somehow it is acceptable for the East......I do not understand that, I don't understand a lot of things but this one seems like the teaching for clerical celibacy is pretty clear.

In case you happen across something authoritative pre-V2, please post it for me and I'll do the same if I happen across something. 
Reply
#46
Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:Turning now to the Oriental Churches in communion with the Holy See, we may note that as a general principle married  clerics are not ineligible for the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood. As in the Russian Church  they must either be married in accordance with the canons (i.e. not to a widow, etc.), or else as a preliminary to ordination they are asked whether they will promise to observe chastity. The full recognition of the right of the Oriental  clergy to retain their wives will be found in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Etsi pastoralis", 26 May, 1742.

There has, however, been a strong movement of recent years among the Eastern  Catholic Churches  favouring conformity with Western Christendom  in this matter of celibacy. For example, the Armenian Church  dependent upon the Patriarch  of Cilicia even as far back as July, 1869, passed a resolution that celibacy should be required of all the higher orders  of the clergy. Again the Synod of Scharfa in Syria, in 1888, decreed that "the celibate life  which is already observed by the great majority of the priests  of our Church should henceforth be common to all", although the deacons and priests who were already married were allowed to continue as before, and though a certain  power of dispensation  in cases of necessity was left with the patriarch. Similarly in 1898 a synod of the Catholic Copts at Alexandria decreed  that henceforth all candidates for any of the higher orders  must be celibate "according to the ancient discipline  of the Church of Alexandria and the other Churches of God".

I just quoted the end of the article. I recommend reading it in its entirety.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)