Posted on 12/16/2006 1:07:45 PM PST by Zemo
He was celibate, too.
See post #56 & #70.
"As a practical matter, how is the Orthodox Church dealing with its shortage of clergy?"
The GOA doesn't have a shortage right now, though there may be one looming and we have had them in the past. The only way to deal with it is to pray for vocations. The same way you guys are dealing with yours. These matters are up to God. I no more believe that the priest shortage in some dioceses of the Latin Church is due to the celibacy rule than you do. The problem lies with formation of the young in both particular churches. Our converts tend to take Orthodoxy more seriously than do cradle Orthodox and while the overwhelming majority of them get over any crazy convert disease eventually, they remain in some ways more consciously convinced of Orthodoxy than many cradle types. And its from them and their families that we are seeing great and growing numbers of seminarians.
The question I asked, however, was a sincere one. Do you think that celibacy, clearly the highest of callings, designed to accomplish precisely what you have written, can accomplish that end, again as a general rule, "in the world"? I am not suggesting for a moment that if as a practical matter the ends of celibacy are more likely accomplished in monasteries than in parish work, the Latin Church's rule should be changed.
The Catholic Church does have both celibate and married clergy.
Biblical evidence please.
True. It's also true that one is not required to be a priest in order to serve God. Celibacy, like the priesthood itself, is a choice for some but not for all.
Wanna be married? Fine.
Wanna be a priest? Fine.
Wanna be a married priest? Fine. But that would be a pretty good clue that you don't want to be a Latin-rite priest.
By default and only after it created the Uniate movement in the 18th century.
You have missed the point. Celibacy is not the issue, especially considering that Protestant churches are having similar shortages and sexual scandals (even if they are not publicized).
The problems are these:
-often, it is seen as a "waste of talent"
-the monetary rewards are few (a special problem for supporting a family)
-parents often pressure young men for grandchildren (especially if he is the only son)
-parents often want their children to be able to care for them in old age; this isn't always a possibility for the clergyman.
The solutions are to pray for more priests and encourage young men that may be suited for ministry to seek it. The problem is that there is little encouragement; so many Catholics want priests and Sacraments and a Mass in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Polish, etc... but they never want to give their sons, nephews, or grandsons to be priests.
Teach young men the faith, without watering it down, without feminizing it, teach them to be holy... the Faith unadulterated will draw men to be priests.
I know this from my own experience. I am currently discerning a vocation to the priesthood, but this never was something that I considered UNTIL I took my Faith seriously. The thought of giving up a chance of having a wife and children is something that I struggled with... but then I think what I'm considering... it's celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom!
Also,I can't understand why Episcopal priests who convert to Catholicism and become Catholic priests are allowed to serve as priests and remain married yet no other priests are.
This is a PRIVILEGE given to these men, because they did not have the opportunity to discern a vocation to the priesthood until after they were married (by virtue of their not being in the Church). If my understanding is correct, someone who is baptized in the Catholic Church and leaves then returns as a former Protestant minister is not given that opportunity.
Nobody has the right to be a priest except for Christ. When He instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders, he gave men the privilege to share in His Priesthood, and He gave the Church the task of helping men to discern. For this reason, a man cannot say definitively "I have a vocation to the priesthood" unless the Church can substantiate it.
Probably because forum posting is new to me I may be not making myself clearer.
I am just bringing up the fact that the Latin rite excludes married non-celibate clergy but allows it for eastern rite Catholics. I think that the Latin rite should RETURN to the tradition it once held of having a combination of married and celibate clergy.
I just want to make clear I am not for abolishing celibate clergy - and I think it is valuable to consider that Latins once also had married non celibate clergy like the Orthodox and that a return to that tradition by Latins would not be an innovation.
"Because a universal church has univeral rules as I recon it."
Very old fashioned Roman Catholic of you.
I think that one of the reasons against changing the discipline is that most of those who call for it in the West are the same people who wish to introduce other errors into the Church. Maybe someday it will be wise to change the practice back to the ancient tradition. For now, with an oversexualized society and crazies like Abp. Milingo and the "Celibacy is the Issue" crowd running around, I don't think it's a wise decision right now. That's just my two cents, and if Pope Benedict were to change the discipline to allow married clergy tomorrow, I would be more than willing to embrace the idea, because it does have its own merits.
Dear ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY,
"Christ himself said that when he comes again, he won't hear everyone who cries 'Lord;' but only those who obey his commandments."
There is a certain bitter irony in the scenario of someone likely coming from a set of traditions that includes "Once Saved, Always Saved" lecturing about presumption those who come from traditions where we dare not presume.
Mr. Dreher is a member of Orthodoxy. He is more than welcome to offer any critiques, suggestions, hints, clues, innovations or other bright ideas to his new communion, fellow worshippers, and hierarchs.
But Mr. Dreher made a pointed, public, and execrable exit from the Catholic Church. From our perspective, he is an apostate. One hopes that he will not ultimately be damned, but one does not generally seek advice about how to run one's Church from folks who have apostasized from one's Church.
In fact, it isn't unusual if one doesn't really care much about what others say generally about running one's church if those folks aren't a part of one's church.
It doesn't really have much to do with who is going to Heaven, and who isn't, but rather the right of an organization to make and enforce its own rules, without interference from those who do not wish to commit to the organization through membership.
sitetest
Eastern Rite Catholics have married clergy along the lines of Orthodox Greek Rite practice and yet they are fully Catholic (the so called Uniates) and I also think this is allowed among the Coptic Rite Catholics and other Eastern Rite Catholics.
Yes, this is true, with reservations.
So to be correct, Latin Rite Catholic clergy are the only Catholic clergy forbidden to marry.
"Forbidden" is such a mean word. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma.
Allow me to take this opportunity to enlighten you on the acceptance of married men into the clergy of the Eastern Catholic Churches. In October 2005, the Holy Father convened a Vatican Synod on the Eucharist. In the course of their meeting, the question of married clergy surfaced, as happens on a regular basis at different synods.
During the discussion, many of the bishops supported the proposal of "a more adequate distribution of the clergy throughout the world.", while a generic suggestion to reconsider the discipline of clerical celibacy was advanced by just a few bishops from Great Britain and New Zealand.
Reporting on this Synod, Sandro Magister notes the following:
Curiously, the most serious criticisms of ordaining married men came from exponents of the Eastern Rite Churches, in which married priesthood is the norm.
Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, patriarch of the Maronites of Lebanon, said:
“Half of our diocesan priests are married. However, we must admit that the marriage of priests, even if resolving one problem, also creates other serious problems. A married priest has the duty of taking care of his wife and children, to ensure their education, to secure for them a certain social standing. The priesthood was also a means of social promotion in Lebanon. Another problem arises for a married priest, that of not having misunderstandings with the parishioners. Despite this, it can be the case that the bishop cannot transfer him, due to the impossibility of his family to move with him.”
I am a registered parishioner at a Maronite Catholic Church in the US. It is the policy of Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Sfeir to NEVER assign married priests to the diaspora. The Maronites, like their Latin cousins, consider celibacy the most precious gem in the treasure of the Catholic Church . My Maronite pastor is celibate. It affords him the flexibility of serving as a 'Father' to his small congregation and assisting the local RC Diocese, as well.
Peter himself wrote of being in "Babylon." No early Church writings ever suggested that he was martyred anyplace other than Rome. The only people who have ever even questioned this are modern-day anti-Catholic bigots who seem inclined to grasp at anything to discount the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which the Lord founded on Peter's confession.
You wrote: "Should not a universal church have universal rules?"
Yes, and it does. Here is the universal rule of the Universal Church on priests and marriage. Once ordained, they can't marry. That's the universally observed rule. It is observed by all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (as far as I know).
Beyond that there are different rules according to the particular churches. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox have married bishops. But only the Orthodox choose their bishops exclusively from monasteries.
Still, particular churches have their own particular rules about celibacy or married clergy.
Biblical references please.
Since another person is involved, I don't think it makes sense to think of it as a right to marry.
The Bible doesn't even say that he died. By your standards, he might very well still be alive.
The Church has ALWAYS declared "sola scriptura" to be a false doctrine, it is therefore unnecessary of me to even attempt to meet any standards of this erroneous teaching.
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.