Posted on 04/06/2002 6:37:37 PM PST by Valin
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:36:23 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
We are ALL called to sanctity and holiness, Orual, not just priests and those in orders.
Your implication seems to be that celibacy is the only way one can reach perfection.
Also, I sense a little "sex would sully" tone to your post, as if relations with a woman would somehow detract from the priesthood.
Putting aside the fact that a priest has not the time nor the finances to support a wife and children and that such a relationship would be doomed from the start,
Clearly not, as Eastern Rite and Lutheran and Episcopalian converts to the priesthood attest.
How many men applied in 1992 and how many applied in 1999? Percentage figures, when dealing with small numbers to begin with, are misleading. Scotland's about the size of Dallas County, in Texas; in addition, what denomination is the Church of Scotland, or is it its own denomination?
Much of the increase in vocations (if, indeed there has been one) is in third-world countries, where the priesthood will provide a secure life and protection from starvation. In addition, there is still some prestige for the priesthood in these countries.
What a brilliant statement that was.
No we haven't, we all learned the times table.
You suspect correctly.
As you noted, there are Orthodox Rites which allow marriage, if a priest wants to marry, he should join a rite that permits it. If the Novus Ordo permits converted married priests, then he should become a Novus Ordo priest. No problem there.
We are ALL called to sanctity and holiness, Orual, not just priests and those in orders.
Please, sinkspur, get real. If you think you are on a equal basis of sanctity and holiness with a priest, then you possess an arrogance beyond my comprehension. You know exactly what I mean - priests are held to a much stricter standard of behavior than we are because their work is to inspire us to become the best we are capable of, hopefully, by setting a perfect example for us. We follow, they lead.
Your comprehension is obviously limited, as you do not recognize the holiness that ordinary laymen like you can achieve, as compared to the mundane spiritual life that most priests achieve.
You've got an inordinate view of priestly sanctity.
I don't follow any priest. I'm as educated as most of them, and have more life experiences than many of them.
As I said before, you have an aberrational view of the holiness of the priesthood.
I asgree. But its you non-Catholics who say the sodomitic sin of contraception is just fine, not us.
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened?
It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.
In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."
The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method., " but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."
By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.
A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.
I think the mis-perception is in defining what the priesthood is. The priesthood is not a job or even an avocation that pious men hopefully take up. It is a calling from God to lead a special life.
The Church does not hire priests but rather persons who recieve a special calling from God to take up a spiritual life may choose to become priests/monks. This is as much a spiritual action of God as is the Consecration of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a true action and is not symbolic. You either believe this or you don't, there is no halfway.
The men who recieve this calling may choose to become celibate. Celibacy for some of them is not a problem because they are under the special spiritual guidence of God who gave them the calling. Some may choose other self-sacrifices too such as fasting, vows of poverty or silence. These are all ways of divorcing themselves from the secular world and bringing themselves closer to the spiritual.
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
The celibacy of priests in the Western Church is not dogma nor doctrine but tradition and a disciplinary rule. The Western Church prefers to have men who have the spiritual strength to practice this most rigorous form of self-denial. There are married priests in the Eastern Rite Church and married Latin Rite converts from the Lutheran and Episcopalian Church in some instances.
My cousin although married and Catholic is a Rector in the Episcopalian Church because in the middle of his life, he left a very successful professional life, he recieved a calling from God. He could not get permission to become a priest in the Catholic Church because he was married but instead of getting all gruff about it he continues to enrich the lives of both Catholics and Episcopalians.
The frailty of man not withstanding, the main factor is that priests SHOULD be men that are called by God to the spiritual life. Once they recieve the call the Church takes that bud and develops it in the seminary.
The problem today I think is that the Church is doing the calling rather than God. You need men that already have committed their lives to God. You don't take men that go out for one last fling before entering the seminary but rather men that are living the spiritual life and have already started to divorce themselves from secular things. I do think that the Church can make better use of the laity to help spread the Gospel and their works to make up for the shortage of priests.
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven"
(Matt. 22:30).
Yes and no - as stylish folks like to say.
Yes, we are all called to holiness, but there is a very clear hierarchy, very different expectations. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more (Lk 12,48). Simon, I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers (Lk 22,32). Authority in the Church, contrary to feminazi concepts, is for the service to others. Leaders of the Church have been entrusted much, and much will be expected of them. And here is something that may help you understand the difference: fathering an out of wedlock child by a Pope creates more stir, and rightly so, than any other illegitimate fathering. I hope this will help.
In post #55,
…I don't follow any priest. I'm as educated as most of them, and have more life experiences than many of them.
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me (Lk 10,16).
Be careful what you reject and attack. And read your Bible. It's good for you. It's actually much better than Rahner.
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.