|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: marriage for Roman rite Catholic priests
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Progress has been made, but not towards their recognition of our orders, which in my mind is an utterly essential step to reunion. They thought our orders invalid before, and they think our order just as invalid now. So I don't feel too bad for their offended sensibilities.
Well, there has been some suggestion that the involvement of Old Catholic and some Lutheran Bishops (who are recognised as having maintained apostolic succession) in consecrating Anglican Bishops has called the Vatican's declarations of a century ago into question.
Ultimately you're correct in that it's not likely to happen any time soon; but I do hold out the hope that the church will be re-united on earth at some point in the future.
The Dutch Touch hasn't changed matters in the least, and the reordination of priests is the proof. It was always a long shot anyhow.
Talk about the difficulties of ordaining women is grounded in the assumption that reunion can happen if Protestants simply become Roman Catholic. The problem with that being, for me personally, that to do so would be to deny that Christ is present in our Eucharists, and that Christ has acted at my priest's ordination, which would be a sin against my conscience. That is the real ecumenical issue so far as I can see.
Which is all, of course, a complete tangent, though one that proves that clerical celibacy is not really an ecumenical concern.
[ 23. February 2013, 15:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Well, there has been some suggestion that the involvement of Old Catholic and some Lutheran Bishops (who are recognised as having maintained apostolic succession) in consecrating Anglican Bishops has called the Vatican's declarations of a century ago into question.
Completely irrelevant. No-one is going to look at a legalistic little argument like that and suddenly come to the shocking discovery that Protestant churches are in fact just the same as Catholic churches. Or if anyone did then they'd probably become a Protestant, if they weren't already. Just as almost no-one looks at the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession and suddenly realises "Oh Noes! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Protestant priests are not real priests and Protestant sacraments are not real sacraments! Whatever shall I do now?!" and the few who do go and become Catholics.
The splits between our churches were not caused by Catholic nit-picking about "validity" and won't be healed even if the Catholics changed their minds on it (or even better stopped worrying about it at all - though I suspect that real Catholics don't worry about it much, its the Anglos who can get into a tizzy). If, sometime in the future, the splits were formally healed and we all reunited again, then I'm sure such arguments would be brought out to demonstrate that the doctrine has always remained the same, its just the situation that has changed. Churches are good at that, changing their actual position on something while claiming htey haven't. (Rome is probably best of all at it - the Church of England tends rather more to ambiguity - you can never accuse us of changing our minds because you can't tell for sure what we said in the first place). But it woudl be after the fact of recnciliation, not before it.
[ 23. February 2013, 15:23: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I still hold out the faith that the pope and his followers can be brought back to the fold in God's own time. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 23. February 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I still hold out the faith that the pope and his followers can be brought back to the fold in God's own time.
Oh look Mummy, Daddy's the only soldier in step.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I still hold out the faith that the pope and his followers can be brought back to the fold in God's own time.
Oh look Mummy, Daddy's the only soldier in step.
It was just a joke, Tragion. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I found this timeline while searching for Pope Urban II's 1095 appalling action of selling priest's wives into slavery and abandoning their children, for which I only had the source of Peter Beresford Ellis. It's very interesting on the subject.
A Brief History of Priestly Celibacy
It includes references to women as priests as well.
There are other sites which mention the matter I was searching for, but this chronicle seemed particularly interesting. Urban's behaviour seems to be part of historical patterns of assuming women have no status as fully human. Other incidents suggest that this did not always apply to popes.
Perhaps it is unsurprising that you have found your preconceptions supported on the website of an organisation committed to campaigning to change Catholic teaching to accord with your preconceptions.
Please do not assume preconceptions. I chose that site out of all the others because it was simple. I wanted to confirm or disprove what I had read in Ellis (who does have preconceptions) and was surprised at the number of references. One suggested that this was at a time when the church was beginning to question the idea of slavery (think that was Wikipedia). It definitely looks as though the women were sold into slavery. And that the children were sold too did not come from that site which, for some reason, omitted it.
Incidentally, one reference I did not check was pointing out that Ellis had used the incident in his Fidelma series, when they are set much earlier, and thus was in error about the dates, if not in what was ordered. I haven't seen any evidence that it was actually done.
And ken, I did notice it went off piste a bit at the bottom of the list. Include the usual suspects, I suppose.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Enoch, that reference in Corinthians is helpful, as is IngoB's remark about continence.
I have interrogated my source about the idea of what happened to Peter's wife, and it is consistent with both, since the belief he was told was that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
Nothing in Corinthians to indicate either celibacy or normal marriage.
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that idea was about at that time, that would make sense. (While ignoring the necessity of providing an heir.)
And it may not make sense for non-Catholics to be so engrossed in the issue, but it is interesting. And we do sometimes run across Catholic priests.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
...
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that....
[Pedant Alert]
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
[ 23. February 2013, 16:58: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
And there was also another story about Jesus having been the husband of the woman, Mary Magdalene, Jesus healed and got happy, and she escaped after Jesus was killed and got alive again, to further west and had a child.
You will want to file this under "Fiction, Speculative."
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
...
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that....
[Pedant Alert]
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
Would chaste be an appropriate word, also?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Would chaste be an appropriate word, also?
No. Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means fidelity to husband or wife during marriage.
[ 23. February 2013, 17:37: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, it applies in the sense that chastity for a celibate priest requires continence.
[ 23. February 2013, 17:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
AIUI, former Anglican priests joining the Ordinariate may be ordained as Catholic priests. I wonder how their arrival has influenced views in the Catholic Church?
I would have made my point if I had typed what I meant to type:
quote:
married former Anglican priests joining the Ordinariate
The answer may be the same, though.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Less sectarian bollocks would be nice, regardless of whether it is 'a joke'.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Uh, sorry? I sincerely meant it as a joke.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Enoch, that reference in Corinthians is helpful, as is IngoB's remark about continence.
I have interrogated my source about the idea of what happened to Peter's wife, and it is consistent with both, since the belief he was told was that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
Nothing in Corinthians to indicate either celibacy or normal marriage.
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that idea was about at that time, that would make sense. (While ignoring the necessity of providing an heir.)
And it may not make sense for non-Catholics to be so engrossed in the issue, but it is interesting. And we do sometimes run across Catholic priests.
1 Cor 7:1-5 strongly suggest that in the Primitive Church the better view was that a wholly continent marriage 'as brother and sister' was foolhardy and an aberration. So I don't think one could argue from the fact that it doesn't say whether St Peter's marriage was an ordinary one or 'as brother and sister' means that the odds are even either way.
I think we have to assume
a. that it was as other marriages, unless there is hard contemporary evidence otherwise, and
b. any argument that a later tradition developed that it was not, is backward projection of what people in a later generation would like to have argued to support what by then had become their preferred view.
The Edward the Confessor speculation is interesting, as regards him. However, England's fate would have been a lot better had he fathered an heir like most other kings.
Do we actually know whether he was continent, rather than just that either he or his queen were infertile?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
"quote:Originally posted by daisymay:
And are some of the RC thinking that Jesus, a man, was not married and so the RC priests should be "copying" Jesus? And there was also another story about Jesus having been the husband of the woman, Mary Magdalene, Jesus healed and got happy, and she escaped after Jesus was killed and got alive again, to further west and had a child.
Have you been reading stuff by the fiction writer Dan Brown by any chance?"
Probably by Dan Brown: I also do remember seeing pictures of her and her place in Europe and her child. Obviously made up by "ideas" and not real.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
...
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that....
[Pedant Alert]
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
Interesting, because I've always read celibate with regard to Edward. (That's what Wikipedia has, for example. And the History Learning Site, and Spartacus. Upsdell has chastity as his vow, and suggests that this prevents the consummation of his marriage, and I know that is wrong.) The other case was in conversation, and with the sort of usual looseness which crops up in these subjects.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Enoch, I've read suggestions that the story of the oath was made up to cover the marriage's infertility, which would have been regarded as a bad thing, perhaps a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour. And that Edward deliberately kept from Emma because he did not want an heir who was also heir to Godwin who he believed responsible for the death of his brother.
And I agree, he left England in a state in which he should not have left it, and I would go further and argue he is hence not suitable as a patron saint.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[Pedant Alert]
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
Interesting, because I've always read celibate with regard to Edward. (That's what Wikipedia has, for example. And the History Learning Site, and Spartacus. Upsdell has chastity as his vow, and suggests that this prevents the consummation of his marriage, and I know that is wrong.) The other case was in conversation, and with the sort of usual looseness which crops up in these subjects.
I'd be careful about arguments from etymology to definition: it's not like we go around correcting people because they call a young ordained man a priest, even though he's not an elder, simply because it comes from the Gk. presbyteros or something. To pick an example out of the hat.
But you do seem to be correct in this case. Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster both have unmarried, and moreover bound by a vow from marrying. MW has a secondary meaning of abstention from sexual intercourse. The everyday usage I am most familiar with refers primarily to abstention from sex... I was very surprised to see "unmarried" as the dictionary definition.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Correction to the last. It was Edith, not Emma, I knew it perfectly well, but I'm multitasking with a distraction going on and my brain wrote in the other name in the articles without my noticing.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
The common French term for an unmarried man is "celebetaire"; doesn’t imply anything but martial status.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
It is being reported that Cardinal Keith O'Brien suggested it would be a good time for the Catholic church to look again at the discipline of celibacy for priests of the Roman rite. Is this opinion widely shared by senior Catholics or is he unusual in this idea ? If it did happen that a new pope shared his opinion, what would be the mechanism for the church to reconsider the issue ?
I find the timing of this very odd. Perhaps I am just cynical.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
... martial status.
Probably the typo of the year, HenryT. Marriage akin to a state of martial law.
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father? I'm not saying that "exemplary husband and father" is an essential, exclusive test, simply that marriage provides a pretty good proving ground for these standards of holiness, blamelessness and virtuousness (Chrysostom) which were seen as the markers of priestly suitability. The 1 Tim 3 standard seems suitably pragmatic.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the reason for the rule, that if you want all priest to celebrate the Mass/Liturgy/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service every day, in stead of just on Sundays and special holy days, Lev 15:16-18 makes priesthood incompatible with the normal rhythms of married life?
I don't see that as any more of a problem than any other job where he would go to work every day, and Leviticus doesn't apply to Christian priests/presbyters/elders.
[ 24. February 2013, 01:52: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Besides, afaik the Jewish priests of Old Testament times married. So why should any Levitical prohabitions prevent Christian priests from marrying?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This seems a good point to post a reminder to Shipmates to remember Commandment 7 re libel.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
If, hypothetically, they were to allow roman catholic priests to be married, I was wondering how well the 'you can be married before you're ordained but you can't marry' rule would work. It would seem quite obvious to apply that rule, since it's what happens in the eastern catholic rites, and also what happens for perpetual deacons in the roman rite. It also makes a lot of sense in a culture where most men typically get married before the age at which people typically get ordained. We were such a culture a fairly short time ago, but we're not now.
If they want to preserve the current situation where men train for ordination quite young, they'd need to allow priests to marry after ordination. If they apply the obvious rule, there'll be a bunch of men offering themselves for ordination after their children have gone to university (because they'll wait till they've got married. Then hang on for a suitable career break. Then wait till the children have left). They'd make great priests, but that might not be the expected outcome. It also costs a fortune if you give them the same amount of training as the 20somethings get.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This seems a good point to post a reminder to Shipmates to remember Commandment 7 re libel.
B62, Purg Host
I presume the libel lawyers at The Observer and the BBC have considered that carefully. That is whyI worded my post as I did.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
If, hypothetically, they were to allow roman catholic priests to be married, I was wondering how well the 'you can be married before you're ordained but you can't marry' rule would work. It would seem quite obvious to apply that rule, since it's what happens in the eastern catholic rites, and also what happens for perpetual deacons in the roman rite. It also makes a lot of sense in a culture where most men typically get married before the age at which people typically get ordained. We were such a culture a fairly short time ago, but we're not now.
If they want to preserve the current situation where men train for ordination quite young, they'd need to allow priests to marry after ordination. If they apply the obvious rule, there'll be a bunch of men offering themselves for ordination after their children have gone to university (because they'll wait till they've got married. Then hang on for a suitable career break. Then wait till the children have left). They'd make great priests, but that might not be the expected outcome. It also costs a fortune if you give them the same amount of training as the 20somethings get.
Most of *Leon*'s questions can be addressed by observing how the Orthies, at least in North America, handle this. They have a mix of ordinands in their mid-twenties, some married and some single, then a cohort in their thirties (usually because they were converts who needed seasoning, or they were students who had to work for a few years to raise the money for their training), then another post-retirement/2d career batch, a mix of married, widower and celibate.
Note that, like Anglicans, the Orthodox feature a number of clerical dynasties, where sons follow in the family trade. There is also a phenomenon of dating with seriousness among ordinands, so that they do not delay ordination too long while they go about getting married. It's not been unknown for a presbytera to set up her daughter with an eligible ordinand.
The local Ukrainian Catholic seminary seems to feature ordinands in their 20s and 30s, both married and celibate. I don't know if I have seen any mature ones of late. The various Catholic churches tend to pay for clergy training, but generally the Orthodox (like the Anglicans) require that their ordinands find the money.
Occasionally a celibate cleric who wishes to marry has to resign their orders (I once read that they were suspended in the exercise of their orders but that may have been a local expression), and they then tend to hang around as active laymen. I only know of one who went Canterbury after his post-ordination marriage, and that was some years ago in New England.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This seems a good point to post a reminder to Shipmates to remember Commandment 7 re libel.
B62, Purg Host
I presume the libel lawyers at The Observer and the BBC have considered that carefully. That is why I worded my post as I did.
Quite right. No slur intended re your post.
Unfortunately, Hosts have had to be quite careful recently re potentially libellous posts and there has been a fair bit of editing and deleting on other threads.
To quote Max Boyce, I was getting my retaliation in first, for preventive reasons.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... Note that, like Anglicans, the Orthodox feature a number of clerical dynasties, where sons follow in the family trade. There is also a phenomenon of dating with seriousness among ordinands, so that they do not delay ordination too long while they go about getting married. It's not been unknown for a presbytera to set up her daughter with an eligible ordinand.
Neither of these are unknown in the CofE, even though some vicar's wives may advise their daughters 'marry anyone, anyone, else, but not another vicar'.
I know of a vicar for whom if you go back up his paternal line, only one generation was not ordained since the reign of Queen Anne at the beginning of the C18.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Neither of these are unknown in the CofE...
I even know of one such attempt within the Ordinariate.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... Note that, like Anglicans, the Orthodox feature a number of clerical dynasties, where sons follow in the family trade. There is also a phenomenon of dating with seriousness among ordinands, so that they do not delay ordination too long while they go about getting married. It's not been unknown for a presbytera to set up her daughter with an eligible ordinand.
Neither of these are unknown in the CofE, even though some vicar's wives may advise their daughters 'marry anyone, anyone, else, but not another vicar'.
I know of a vicar for whom if you go back up his paternal line, only one generation was not ordained since the reign of Queen Anne at the beginning of the C18.
I belive that in Russia at one point it was the practice for the daughter (or at least one of them) of a priest to marry a priest (well... you know, someone who then became a priest)... and he (not the priests own son) would inherit the parish. I do know several such daughters here in the US.. you'd think they would want to avoid their mother's lives, but no, they embraced it. the sons on the other hand got as far away as they could.
We also have the phenomenon of "matushka wannabes" hanging around seminaries to get married. given that the seminarians are looking for a wife who knows what she's getting into (and usually dont' want to delay), and given these women clearly know what THEY want (or think they do), it probably makes for a good arrangement. Particularly since divorce is out of the question (at least if he wants to remain a priest).
I personally know more than a few couples who met that way.
* Matushka = priest's wife. Batushka is what a priest is generally called, and equates to a friendly form of "father" (Otets is the more formal version). Matushka is the equivalent form for "mother". the words are now only used for priest and their wives, but used to be common terms to adress one's own parents in an endearing and informal setting. Like "mommie" and "daddie" I guess.
and we have an equivalent term to refer to God : Bozhenka. Bog is God, but Russians tend to soften many terms like this (sometimes called a diminutive, but that's not really correct in my oppinion, as it does not DIMINISH in any way. it's an "affectionation".
Matushka is gnerally a VERY important individual in the parish. It's a hard job (if she does it right).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Progress has been made, but not towards their recognition of our orders, which in my mind is an utterly essential step to reunion. They thought our orders invalid before, and they think our order just as invalid now. So I don't feel too bad for their offended sensibilities.
...
Ultimately you're correct in that it's not likely to happen any time soon; but I do hold out the hope that the church will be re-united on earth at some point in the future.
Not anytime soon - my bold - isn't that what was said about the election of a black President of the USA? Change can come like a tsunami, unexpectedly and overwhelmingly. In the meantime, I voted with my feet.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Anyuta and Augustine:
I note that the way this works for orthodox churches in the west seems to rely on quite subtle structures in wider society. I wonder if those structures will instantly spring into existence if the roman catholics needed them in a hurry. Right now there aren't any daughters of priests in Italy to marry seminarians.
Augustine also confirmed my suspicion that this would result in an increased number of late vocations. Which is no bad thing, but is a change that shouldn't be blundered into.
Actually, I missed the interesting thing about any transition: What happens to existing priests who have, with difficulty, decided to prioritise their vocation to the priesthood over their vocation to marriage? Presumably the rules say they're stuck. I'd guess many of them might be annoyed about this. And many of them will be annoyed enough to leave the priesthood and marry.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The current Western discipline basically means that the Church finds it easier to impose continence on single than on married men. (Also, if you wish, the Church finds it easier this way to deal with their incontinence...)
I suppose my real puzzlement is revealed by this comment. St Paul put it this way (1 Cor 7)
quote:
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
(Note. "with passion" is implied, not a literal translation)
The Catholic position, and indeed a good deal of early understanding in church history seems to have taken the implications of this on board as follows.
1. Sexual desire is dangerous to personal holiness.
2. It is better to combat it by self-control than to express such desire with marriage. That's a standard which applies whether you are married or not. And particularly so to those who hold priestly office
3. So if you are married, it's very difficult for you to be a priest and exercise the necessary self-control. You're exposed to the temptation of both your desires and hers.
My problem is the move from step one to step two. Given that marriage was a pre-fall creation ordinance (Gen 2) and "joining" and "becoming one flesh" were an essential part of that (as was being fruitful and multiplying), then sexual coupling was created good. What makes it dangerous after the fall is that it becomes entangled with the essential selfishness and self-centredness which is central to human sinfulness.
So human sexuality which was good pre-fall and subject to all sorts of dangers post-fall is nevertheless redeemable, as are all other fallen states. It can take its rightful place as an essential part of God's solution pre-fall to the fact that "it is not good for man to be alone".
In the chain of logic which I see (possibly imperfectly) there is an implication that human sexuality remains a bar to the sort of holiness which is required of a priest, despite the fact that it was part of the creation ordinance. Where does that come from? I accept that sexual desire can lead people astray, but it seems strange to argue that in Christ it cannot be both redeemed and expressed without remaining a threat to the personal holiness required of a priest. What am I missing?
[ 25. February 2013, 10:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
It would be wholly consistent with Orthodox tradition for the Western Church to go the route of ordaining "Viri probati", or mature married men, but would there then be the crux of existing diocesan priests being locked into their present situation? And what then, if dispensations were given, would be the implications for relations with Orthodoxy?
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father?
I've never thought of the requirement for celibacy as proof of *suitability* but rather as proof of *availability*. That is to say, I thought the RCC saw marriage and ordination as requiring equal, and potentially competing, levels of intimacy.
I do not think it can be reasonable - humane, even - to expect a man with a wife and children to be bound by the seal of the confessional, for example. If my parish priest were married, I would not confess to him.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
I've sometimes wondered whether Paul might actually have meant burn 'in hell' rather than 'with passion'. I.e. unless you really are a person who can be a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, you haven't much hope unless you do marry.
The thing that has long puzzled me, is why any church would want to select its clergy only from those who believe they can manage in life without being married. What actually is the connection between 'being the sort of person we want to exercise ministry among us' and 'being the sort of person who can live a celibate life without it screwing them up'? I can't really see one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father?
I've never thought of the requirement for celibacy as proof of *suitability* but rather as proof of *availability*. That is to say, I thought the RCC saw marriage and ordination as requiring equal, and potentially competing, levels of intimacy.
I do not think it can be reasonable - humane, even - to expect a man with a wife and children to be bound by the seal of the confessional, for example. If my parish priest were married, I would not confess to him.
I would be quite the reverse - I would be much more likely to confess to a married man because I would know that he understood the right use of the sexual impulse in the real world.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father?
I've never thought of the requirement for celibacy as proof of *suitability* but rather as proof of *availability*. That is to say, I thought the RCC saw marriage and ordination as requiring equal, and potentially competing, levels of intimacy.
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
quote:
I do not think it can be reasonable - humane, even - to expect a man with a wife and children to be bound by the seal of the confessional, for example.
Many of us (including me) have lived with the formal requirement to keep confidential information obtained through our vocation. Some of that was of a highly personal nature. My wife faced similar challenges because of her long term pastoral support roles.
Given our responsibilities, we each gave the other both the freedom to keep a secret, to keep it secret that we had a secret, and to share with one another if we were carrying a burden which was hard to bear. We each respected the fact that we did not have a right to know information given to the other in confidence. We found each other's prayers and support very helpful at those times, even if we did not really know what was going on. We learned not to ask probing questions.
quote:
If my parish priest were married, I would not confess to him.
Why should you think that a supportive wife would press him to reveal information when his office barred him from doing so? I suppose there might be a risk, but is it really any more than if the priest had a close friend?
[ 25. February 2013, 12:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
Any understanding of the role of a modern Catholic priest that doesn’t come straight from scripture is nonsensical?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Many of us (including me) have lived with the formal requirement to keep confidential information obtained through our vocation. Some of that was of a highly personal nature. My wife faced similar challenges because of her long term pastoral support roles.
Given our responsibilities, we each gave the other both the freedom to keep a secret, to keep it secret that we had a secret, and to share with one another if we were carrying a burden which was hard to bear. We each respected the fact that we did not have a right to know information given to the other in confidence. We found each other's prayers and support very helpful at those times, even if we did not really know what was going on. We learned not to ask probing questions.
I have to keep information I learn at work confidential. However I’m not likely to be in a scenario where one of my clients tells me that he is - say – harming my child, and I would still be expected to keep that confidential.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why should you think that a supportive wife would press him to reveal information when his office barred him from doing so? I suppose there might be a risk, but is it really any more than if the priest had a close friend?
It’s the children more than the wife, really, but even in the case of the wife, marriage is a much closer relationship than friendship. I'd find it quite difficult to have to socialise with my psychiatrist's wife too.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
Any understanding of the role of a modern Catholic priest that doesn’t come straight from scripture is nonsensical?
Not of itself, no. Developed doctrines in general show roots in Tradition, and of course in the Catholic view, Tradition very much encompasses scripture.
If you've followed my line of argument, even if it was a general part of that Tradition that married men who became priests were then expected to abstain from sexual relations with their wives, the wider experiences of the marriage were seen as an advantageous test of the "holiness, blamelessness, virtue" of any prospective priest.
In short, the married state was not in itself seen as a bar to holiness. The issue was the relationship between "holiness, blamelessness and virtue" and the active expression of human sexuality.
What I'm challenging is that aspect of the Tradition; the notion that sexual relations within a marriage somehow continue to speak against suitability for a priestly role. I guess I can understand the history of that view (or at least have some inkling about how such a view might emerge, but it seems to me to be an incorrect belief of the creation-ordained nature of human sexuality. Human sexuality was a created good. That created goodness gets messed up by human sinfulness. But in the redeemed community, surely we should be arguing that the initial, intrinsic, goodness of human sexuality can be restored. And in particular, is no bar in itself to holiness.
If you see that, where does that leave the argument in favour of a celibate, unmarried priesthood. What current purpose does that actually serve?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
Any understanding of the role of a modern Catholic priest that doesn’t come straight from scripture is nonsensical?
Not of itself, no. Developed doctrines in general show roots in Tradition, and of course in the Catholic view, Tradition very much encompasses scripture.
If you've followed my line of argument, even if it was a general part of that Tradition that married men who became priests were then expected to abstain from sexual relations with their wives, the wider experiences of the marriage were seen as an advantageous test of the "holiness, blamelessness, virtue" of any prospective priest.
In short, the married state was not in itself seen as a bar to holiness. The issue was the relationship between "holiness, blamelessness and virtue" and the active expression of human sexuality.
What I'm challenging is that aspect of the Tradition; the notion that sexual relations within a marriage somehow continue to speak against suitability for a priestly role. I guess I can understand the history of that view (or at least have some inkling about how such a view might emerge, but it seems to me to be an incorrect belief of the creation-ordained nature of human sexuality. Human sexuality was a created good. That created goodness gets messed up by human sinfulness. But in the redeemed community, surely we should be arguing that the initial, intrinsic, goodness of human sexuality can be restored. And in particular, is no bar in itself to holiness.
If you see that, where does that leave the argument in favour of a celibate, unmarried priesthood. What current purpose does that actually serve?
I see what you're driving at and yes, I agree, if there is nothing wrong with living out one's sexuality in the way the Church traditionally recommends (marriage), why should that be a bar to holy orders?
It's just that when I come at the argument from a completely different angle - one of emotional and financial/logistical practicality, I can't see how it works.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's just that when I come at the argument from a completely different angle - one of emotional and financial/logistical practicality, I can't see how it works.
If you can't see how it works, have you considered looking at examples? Or are Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and Anglican clergy horribly failing to provide adequate pastoral care? There don't seem to be emotional/financial/logistical issues for them.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's just that when I come at the argument from a completely different angle - one of emotional and financial/logistical practicality, I can't see how it works.
If you can't see how it works, have you considered looking at examples? Or are Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and Anglican clergy horribly failing to provide adequate pastoral care? There don't seem to be emotional/financial/logistical issues for them.
I didn't say horribly failing. It's my view that the Catholic model works better.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I didn't say horribly failing. It's my view that the Catholic model works better.
In what way? It reads like you're trying to justify the existing position. It's certainly the case from my understanding that most Anglican parishes actively prefer Priests who are married and particularly those with young children.
It has never crossed my mind when talking to a Priest or Minister of any denomination, whether married or unmarried, that they would even breach any ordinary confidence, never mind the confessional.
It's actually pretty insulting to celibate Priests to imply that the only reason they don't treat what they here in confession as bits of titilating gossip is because they don't share a bed with someone.
[ 25. February 2013, 19:38: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It has never crossed my mind when talking to a Priest or Minister of any denomination, whether married or unmarried, that they would even breach any ordinary confidence, never mind the confessional.
It's actually pretty insulting to celibate Priests to imply that the only reason they don't treat what they here in confession as bits of titilating gossip is because they don't share a bed with someone.
My discomfort is not to do with fear that they would share confidences, but whether it is ever appropriate to share intimacy with someone else's spouse. And yes, for me, that has affected the degree to which I have taken Anglican clergy - even when most loved and esteemed as ministers - into my confidence.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
