The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (theophan, 1 invisible), 92 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,297
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 48
Tamiian Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 48
http://simchafisher.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/time-for-married-priests/

I pray for unity. I'm not saying that the Roman-rite needs to embrace a married priesthood with open arms, but their attitude seems to be a barrier to unity- because a married priesthood is an important part of Eastern tradition.

Once again- the actual post is okay- it is just those pesky comments, but that is how people really feel...:(

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Why do people insist on writing about what they do not know, and in such a truculent manner, too.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Because they're NOT stupid, NOT stupid, NOT stupid. It's because they're concerned about the future of the Church and they are just not as snarkily eloquent or necessarily as book educated as you or me, either.
People like them will march into the Kingdom at the head of the line while wiseacres like me and you will bring up the tail - IF we're lucky.
Read Flannery O'Connor's short story "Revelation".

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
To each their own. It seems like without a tradition of married priests in the RCC, it would be hard for them to adopt it.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
In 1997, then Cardinal Ratzinger gave an interview with Peter Seewald. The interview was published as Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millenium. Below is a quote from the interview on the question of mandatory celebacy. Most interesting was his description of married priests who do not possess the full form of the priesthood and are "really only liturgical ministers." Celebate priests possess the full form of the priesthood because they mirror the bishop who is celebate. Certainly the bishop possesses the fullness of the priesthood, but not because he is celebate. The "people's priest" exercises little pastoral care? I know married clergy (Latin and Eastern)who would take offense to this. What kind of theology is this?!?!

Quote
Back to my question: Do you think that perhaps one day priests will be able to decide freely between celibate and noncelibate life?

I understood your question. I simply had to make it clear that in any event, at least according to what every priest says before his ordination, celibacy is not a matter of compulsion. Someone is accepted as a priest only when he does it of his own accord. And that is now the question, of course: How deeply do priesthood and celibacy belong together? And is not the wish to have only one [without the other] a lower view of the priesthood? Nor do I think that in this matter it's enough simply to point to the Orthodox Churches and Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity has per se a completely different understanding of office: it is a function, it is a ministry coming out of the community, but it is not a sacrament in the same sense; it is not priesthood in this proper sense. In the Orthodox Churches we have, on the one hand, the full form of the priesthood, the priest monks, who alone can become bishops. Alongside them are the "people's priests", who, if they want to marry, must marry before ordination but who exercise little pastoral care but are really only liturgical ministers. This is also a somewhat different conception of priesthood. We, on the other hand, are of the opinion that everyone who is a priest at all must be so in the way that the bishop is and that there cannot be such a division.

One ought not to declare that any custom of the Church's life, no matter how deeply anchored and well founded, is wholly absolute. To be sure, the Church will have to ask herself the question again and again; she has now done so in two synods. But I think that given the whole history of Western Christianity and the inner vision that lies at the basis of the whole, the Church should not believe that she will easily gain much by resorting to this uncoupling; rather in any case she will lose if she does so.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
I agree that was badly put. Of course Catholic doctrine doesn't teach that celibate priests are more priests than married ones (like a woman can't be sort of pregnant; a man is either a priest or not), even though the rule, only a rule though longstanding, is only the celibate may become bishops; the idea that celibate priests are better priests is only opinion.

Protestants of course are not in this picture: some claim the priesthood (Anglicans) but all believe in a fallible church (everything's changeable by decree or vote) so the question's moot.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I agree that was badly put. Of course Catholic doctrine doesn't teach that celibate priests are more priests than married ones (like a woman can't be sort of pregnant; a man is either a priest or not), even though the rule, only a rule though longstanding, is only the celibate may become bishops; the idea that celibate priests are better priests is only opinion.

Protestants of course are not in this picture: some claim the priesthood (Anglicans) but all believe in a fallible church (everything's changeable by decree or vote) so the question's moot.

Unfortunately, I have heard a Hieromonk or two in the Orthodox world express similar sentiments to those quoted by the Deacon. I have personal reasons to take great offense to such notions as they are, frankly, ridiculous.

and...I do agree with AMM that suddenly accepting married clergy would really be hard for Roman Catholics to deal with and a long period of time would be needed for the practice to gain hold and be accepted on a wide-spread basis..

Last edited by DMD; 02/03/11 03:35 PM.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
It makes about as much sense as saying bishops who are widowers are not the same as other bishops.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
I wonder of Pope Benedict would stand by those words now...

They are very surprising and, in my mind, the remarks show disrespect for bishops, who allow priest to act in their place on the parish level.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
I've heard that one also.(AMM's comment) That's the context of what I was referring to when I was mentioning Hieromonks. I have heard some lay people say the same. Having been blessed in my life to know more than a few Bishops, I can say that their former marital state or lack thereof had no impact on the nature or character of their episcopacy.

Last edited by DMD; 02/03/11 04:32 PM.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
It's non Rusyns that we know are really second class priests/bishops. grin


Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5