Why Not Married Priests?
#21
duplicate
Reply
#22
(07-27-2018, 01:49 PM)Vulgate Wrote: This would be antiquarianism and discount organic and healthy development of discipline (priestly celibacy, liturgy, etc.). Sadly, the "West" has already broken this rule a million times now since the glorious Vatican II, so I would not be surprised that it would be break it again.

I wouldn't go around and find a liturgical feature that existed in the first 300-500 years and target Eastern Catholics saying they should do it.

So then you're not opposed to it if it is an organic change in the Latin church?  How can change happen organically if you have rules that block change from happening, or are unwilling to relax those rules for pragmatic reasons?

The argument to retain celibacy seems to be, at least in part, about holding onto the tradition because it has been the tradition for 1500 years.  That, too, is antiquarianism.
Reply
#23
(07-27-2018, 01:57 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-27-2018, 01:49 PM)Vulgate Wrote: This would be antiquarianism and discount organic and healthy development of discipline (priestly celibacy, liturgy, etc.). Sadly, the "West" has already broken this rule a million times now since the glorious Vatican II, so I would not be surprised that it would be break it again.

I wouldn't go around and find a liturgical feature that existed in the first 300-500 years and target Eastern Catholics saying they should do it.

So then you're not opposed to it if it is an organic change in the Latin church?  How can change happen organically if you have rules that block change from happening, or are unwilling to relax those rules for pragmatic reasons?

Well, that’s a whole other topic.

Organic development can result in a final crystallization of a certain practice. Example: do not touch the Sacred Species of the Holy Eucharist.

Should the East and West relax rules for this to allow further development, maybe to touch the Sacred Species? Or Intinction themselves? That would be silly (and sadly the Roman Church has allowed this). And it would be antiquarian because an objectively superior practice(s) has developed and replaced the inferior practice.

However, you are right that certain other items can be left to future development. But it should not reek of antiquarianism.





Quote:The argument to retain celibacy seems to be, at least in part, about holding onto the tradition because it has been the tradition for 1500 years.  That, too, is antiquarianism.

Antiquarianism is returning to a feature of the past, not currently in use, for the sake of the past - disconting legitimate organic development.

People complain about “Latinization” of their church, maybe I can complain about “Easternization” too?

The celibate state is objectively superior as Our Lord notes in sacred Scripture. It allows for the best spiritual development. And the priest is an important aspect of the spiritual lives of the faithful. This is one reason why there was a lot of emphasis on practicing continence once you became a priest in the early Church and why bishops were celibate and essentially cannot marry.

The west’s tradition is a development of the state of continence and celibacy in the priesthood – not a break. It is the logical result of prudence and solidifying an objectively superior practice – just like with the handling of the Sacred Species.

You might as well try to argue that everything that has ever changed from the first 500 years that is related to discipline is a “break from tradition.” And I am sure I can find lots of breaks, East West, Oriental, Indian, Ethiopian, etc. etc. etc.
Reply
#24
I think relaxing the rule, considered purely in itself, is not a terrible thing, and perhaps in some ways a good one. However, in the real world, in the iconoclastic, sex-obsessed, post-Vatican II world, I don't see how the Roman Church makes the change without giving the appearance of total capitulation to the culture. As Jovan and others have said – the dam would be broken. Women deacons would follow very quickly, without any doubt in my mind, and the pressure for women priests and bishops would continue to grow. At some point the Church really has to hold the line.

Apart from the capitulation to culture such a move would represent, there are practicalities that would have to be addressed. The Roman Church is not set up practically or by institutional tradition to support the families of priests. Priests are not paid enough to support himself, a wife, and however many children they may have. Salary, medical insurance, etc., are expensive. Roman tradition has frowned on priests working any "outside" jobs besides teaching; outside jobs are a common enough occurrence for Orthodox priests in smaller parishes – would or could the Roman Church adopt such a policy? Is it fair to ask a man to be a pastor AND work outside jobs? Would it be fair to a wife and children?
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
[-] The following 2 users Like aquinas138's post:
  • jovan66102, Sacred Heart lover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)