Diamond versus a typical "Catholic in good standing". Who seems more rational ?
#21
(01-14-2012, 03:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 01:47 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 11:55 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 09:44 AM)verenaerin Wrote: Unless I'm completely off, a priest who leaves the priesthood to get married is not a Catholic in good standing.

Not if he gets permission.

In any case, priests should be able to get married so it's a moot point. I wish the problems in the Church were just about celibacy.

Just to be clear, Vetus.  You support the ordination of married men to the priesthood *and* you support that the Church marry couples in which the man is already an ordained priest?

The first is not as problematic as the second, which is really against Christian praxis for all time as far as I know.

Yes, I support the idea that all clergy can (not ought to) be married, both prior and after ordination, although preferably prior. Priests, deacons and bishops alike.

Clerical celibacy is an old discipline in the West but it's not inherently unoverturnable. The Apostles were certainly married, at least some of them.

Clerical celibacy is limited to the West and not overturnable (you mention the apostles), but the idea that ordained men can then go on to marry ... I understand this was truly from all time and a universal prohibition.

I don't understand why you don't make the distinction between these two things.  Certainly none of the Apostles took a wife *after* being called by Christ.
Reply
#22
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.
Reply
#23
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.
Well said. They are considered. And they are also out of context. In the history of the Church, they have always been around (outside of the Church). It is the easy way out.
Pick and choose the Popes you want and the ones you don't. No big deal really. Normally we would wait until history tells us what Pope was an anti-pope. Even St. Athanasius did this.
No. I have seen first hand what the anti-montanians (Sedes in Mexico) say and do.
In fact, they claim that the seat is not only vacant it is finished. Sede-Finita.
This, as I said, is not new. Sedes have been circling the Church ever since St. Peter was crucified.
To be a sede is "the easy way out".

Faithful catholic 100 years ago, were not sedes.  They were true and duked it out till the next Pope. But they didn't throw the towel at the first sight of a major problem.
Now the problem that the current sedes have (this is historical now), is that just as the jehovas witness change the date for armageddon,  the sedes even after 5 Popes, still say the chair is Vacant. (Oh, and they'll keep on going.)
Hopefully some will revert back to the One True Catholic Faith and grab the bull by the horns and not just throw stones and jabs at the first sight of The Pontiff and run away.
Reply
#24
(01-15-2012, 03:24 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.
Well said. They are considered. And they are also out of context. In the history of the Church, they have always been around (outside of the Church). It is the easy way out.
Pick and choose the Popes you want and the ones you don't. No big deal really. Normally we would wait until history tells us what Pope was an anti-pope. Even St. Athanasius did this.
No. I have seen first hand what the anti-montanians (Sedes in Mexico) say and do.
In fact, they claim that the seat is not only vacant it is finished. Sede-Finita.
This, as I said, is not new. Sedes have been circling the Church ever since St. Peter was crucified.
To be a sede is "the easy way out".

Faithful catholic 100 years ago, were not sedes.  They were true and duked it out till the next Pope. But they didn't throw the towel at the first sight of a major problem.
Now the problem that the current sedes have (this is historical now), is that just as the jehovas witness change the date for armageddon,  the sedes even after 5 Popes, still say the chair is Vacant. (Oh, and they'll keep on going.)
Hopefully some will revert back to the One True Catholic Faith and grab the bull by the horns and not just throw stones and jabs at the first sight of The Pontiff and run away.

+1
Reply
#25
(01-14-2012, 03:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Yes, I support the idea that all clergy can (not ought to) be married, both prior and after ordination, although preferably prior. Priests, deacons and bishops alike.

Clerical celibacy is an old discipline in the West but it's not inherently unoverturnable. The Apostles were certainly married, at least some of them.

How does Marriage gel with the vow of poverty? Wives and families are pretty damned expensive. Sounds like it would be a case of not getting the Church roof repaired because the Kids need new trainers and expensive College text books.Or would Married priests, firmly invested in a worldly life as a result, have to take a second job in the civilian sphere to pay for the daily needs of a family rather than plunder the collection basket?
Reply
#26
(01-14-2012, 11:55 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 09:44 AM)verenaerin Wrote: Unless I'm completely off, a priest who leaves the priesthood to get married is not a Catholic in good standing.

Not if he gets permission.

In any case, priests should be able to get married so it's a moot point. I wish the problems in the Church were just about celibacy.
Whay should priests be allowed to get married?
I know the discipline of priestly celibacy can be changed, but why should it be?
Reply
#27
(01-15-2012, 01:44 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Yes, I support the idea that all clergy can (not ought to) be married, both prior and after ordination, although preferably prior. Priests, deacons and bishops alike.

Clerical celibacy is an old discipline in the West but it's not inherently unoverturnable. The Apostles were certainly married, at least some of them.

How does Marriage gel with the vow of poverty? Wives and families are pretty damned expensive. Sounds like it would be a case of not getting the Church roof repaired because the Kids need new trainers and expensive College text books.Or would Married priests, firmly invested in a worldly life as a result, have to take a second job in the civilian sphere to pay for the daily needs of a family rather than plunder the collection basket?

tbh, how is this not the case already? 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#28
(01-15-2012, 01:44 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Yes, I support the idea that all clergy can (not ought to) be married, both prior and after ordination, although preferably prior. Priests, deacons and bishops alike.

Clerical celibacy is an old discipline in the West but it's not inherently unoverturnable. The Apostles were certainly married, at least some of them.

How does Marriage gel with the vow of poverty? Wives and families are pretty damned expensive. Sounds like it would be a case of not getting the Church roof repaired because the Kids need new trainers and expensive College text books.Or would Married priests, firmly invested in a worldly life as a result, have to take a second job in the civilian sphere to pay for the daily needs of a family rather than plunder the collection basket?

Secular priests don't make a vow of poverty and are allowed to own their own property just like laymen.  And it looks like we would just be dealing with diocesan priests - presumably the men that felt they had this double vocation wouldn't be trying to raise a family in a secluded monastery, and I'm sure traditional religious orders would put rules in place against accepting men with this "calling."
Reply
#29
(01-15-2012, 12:49 PM)GeorgeT Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:24 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.
Well said. They are considered. And they are also out of context. In the history of the Church, they have always been around (outside of the Church). It is the easy way out.
Pick and choose the Popes you want and the ones you don't. No big deal really. Normally we would wait until history tells us what Pope was an anti-pope. Even St. Athanasius did this.
No. I have seen first hand what the anti-montanians (Sedes in Mexico) say and do.
In fact, they claim that the seat is not only vacant it is finished. Sede-Finita.
This, as I said, is not new. Sedes have been circling the Church ever since St. Peter was crucified.
To be a sede is "the easy way out".

Faithful catholic 100 years ago, were not sedes.  They were true and duked it out till the next Pope. But they didn't throw the towel at the first sight of a major problem.
Now the problem that the current sedes have (this is historical now), is that just as the jehovas witness change the date for armageddon,  the sedes even after 5 Popes, still say the chair is Vacant. (Oh, and they'll keep on going.)
Hopefully some will revert back to the One True Catholic Faith and grab the bull by the horns and not just throw stones and jabs at the first sight of The Pontiff and run away.

+1
+1 Nothing but the truth Tapatio!
Reply
#30
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

To that question I answer no. Catholics of 100 years ago would not recognize the changes. They would indeed think they were Protestant.
I could not imagine any of the apostles of Christ attending the new mass.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)