Posted on 01/31/2004 5:52:33 AM PST by ninenot
Take a look at this article HERE regarding celibacy and the early Church:
http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/jul/13/letter_1-1.htm
Here is a quote:
"It turns out that to speak of celibacy is not an adequate notion, since the early Church did not have an obligation for the clergy to be unmarried, as meant by the Latin word (caelebs). From this fact the conclusion is sometimes drawn that mandatory celibacy was an invention of the Papal Church in the Middle Ages. Those who pursue this line of argument often point to the Second Lateran Council in 1193, which declared marriages contracted after the reception of holy orders invalid. As a matter of fact, well into the Middle Ages no bishop, priest or deacon was required to be unmarried. The exclusive discipline of celibacy, in the strict sense of the word, according to canon law came into force only after the Council of Trent (1545-1563). In the first millennium, an unmarried clergyman was not exactly the exception, but he was not the rule either.
However, to concentrate on the question of married or unmarried clergy misses the point. Ecclesiastical legislation from as early as the fourth century was much concerned with regulating the life of the clergy, especially in matters of sexual conduct. Recent scholarship suggests that a discipline of clerical continence, more comprehensive than what we understand today as celibacy, was established from the very beginning. Not only the unmarried clergy were affected by such a rule; the married clergy (and their wives) were, too, for they were required to renounce all sexual relations after their ordination. The early Church knew of an obligation for all higher clerics, that is, bishops, deacons and priests, to abstain from sexual intercourse. Thus the present discipline of the Latin Church would appear to be in continuity with the original discipline of clerical continence. "
I am aware that the Orthodox do sometimes have wives and families.
Now, are you going to make me haul out my Durant? ;-)
Tia
You sure about that?
Look here: www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/celhist1 for a pretty lengthy and erudite review of the history.
I have no tolerance for Jack Chick or anyone like him.
Tia
Father John is a gift from God.
Even our grandsons want to be alter boys, this is their decision.
BTW, I do not care for girl servers. But that is another story.
You are lucky to have such a good priest in this day and age!
Tia
Incorrect. The discipline of celibacy and the priesthood in the Church finds it's genesis with Melchisedech in the Old Testament and was practiced and taught by the Apostles. Suggest you study accurate history, as well as Matthew 19:27-30 and Luke 18:28-30 rather than simply regurgitating ignorant urban legends.
"ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus"
I HAVE studied Church history, of several flavors. I can back what I am saying up.
Now *I* am being friendly about this. Why aren't you?
Tia
Thank you for your post. Call to Action is bogus Catholicism. Fortunately, at the last CTA convention/conference, most of the participants were old. The Holy Spirit is diminishing their numbers. They are dying off, as are all the old radical, flaky, heretical religious that afflicted the Church immediately following Vatican II.
Yeah, pretty certain. It wasn't that the Church ever said that celibecy wasn't the best or correct thing (in fact, it was real consistent about that); rather I think that the social upheavels associated with the 10th century were so great that the Church was faced with a problem of significant numbers (though nothing near a majority) of priests and bishops who were taking wives. Rather than declare them all heretics or defrock them, there was a recognition that they were still valid priests (although I think that their children were barred from ever entering Holy Orders).
Celibecy continued to be considered the ideal though, and by about 1050 or 1100 (I think) the Church was able to reestablish the discipline as a requirement. I'll do a check on the exact time frame later when I have some time
You may speculate as to the motivation of the Church for a celibate priesthood, but what do you mean by "the Church"? Do you mean that Church councils met and decided to adopt a celibate priesthood to enrich "the Church"?
Actually, I think an anti-Catholic statement like yours is based less upon history and more upon opinion. St. Paul himself inspired celibacy, advising those who wanted to dedicate themselves to God's service to remain celibate. He said that a celibate would not be distracted by the wants and needs of a spouse. That, truly, is the motivation of the Church for a celibate priesthood. Conversely, a married clergy opposes Apostolic advice!
What fascinates me most is the fact that married Protestant clergy have a rate of sexual abuse 5 times higher than that for celibate clergy (Jenkins, Pennsylvania University). A married clergy is not a solution for clerical sexual abuse.
To discover the real early Church, may I suggest a study of the writings of early Church fathers? That is better repeating old and familiar antiCatholic diatribes.
Regards.
You don't have to. Rather, take a looka at this article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
Youl will note that celibacy very common (in fact, the norm) in the western church far earlier than the Middle Ages and was considered an ideal to be enforced as early as the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii
As I said, this has far more to do with the cultural divide between East and West then money or property. Interesting topic for discussion, though.
Have a good one...
This is basically what it comes down to, you either believe what 2 thousand years of theological study has developed into or your not a ROMAN Catholic. If we as Roman Catholics don't want to follow what Rome teaches, than we are protestents.
Why then try to change the Roman church, why not find a church that teaches what you believe?
I'm not trying to insult anyone, just trying to state the obvious.
Agreed. You are free to believe whatever you want in the USA, but you are simply being dishonest if you call the beliefs of Call To Action and Future Church "Catholic".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.