It is currently Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:08 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
 Theological works on clerical celibacy? 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Theological works on clerical celibacy?
What are some good theological works on clerical celibacy and/or perpetual continence?

I've read Card. Stickler's The Case for Clerical Celibacy and Roman Cholij's "Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church," but they are mainly historical, not theological.

Do some theologians argue that celibacy and/or perpetual continence is divine law? Or do they say it is just a changeable "discipline"?

Not a single Church father promoted that clerics not be perpetually continent, right? So, wouldn't that prove it's divine law, especially since it has Apostolic origins, as Card. Stickler proves in his book?

If this question could be resolved conclusively, and the fact the Conciliar Church supports incontinent "permanent deacons" and the new Vatican secretary of state is thinking of further "egalitarian-izing" the Conciliar Church by questioning clerical celibacy, it would be another nail in the coffin of its supposed Catholicity.

thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
It is my understanding that there has absolutely never been any tradition in the Church, East or West, which would allow priests or deacons to marry. In the East, priests must be married before ordination. However, once ordained, even should the wife die (divorce, with or without an "annulment", isn't even a consideration) a priest or deacon cannot remarry. There have been married bishops (e.g., Saint Peter) but even the Eastern Church ended the practiced of allowing married men to be made bishops extremely early in the Church's history.

The fact that the Conciliar sect allows for (permanent) deacons to be married is a break in the Western traditions, but it is not a break in sacred tradition. The fact that the Conciliar sect allows their deacons to marry after they are ordained, however, is a break in tradition. Should the Conciliar sect allow ordained priests (and, presumably bishops) to marry, it would represent a complete novelty in any entity claiming to be Catholic.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
TKGS wrote:
It is my understanding that there has absolutely never been any tradition in the Church, East or West, which would allow priests or deacons to marry.
Yes, that's correct.
TKGS wrote:
In the East, priests must be married before ordination. However, once ordained, even should the wife die (divorce, with or without an "annulment", isn't even a consideration) a priest or deacon cannot remarry.
Yes, that's always been true, since Apostolic times.
TKGS wrote:
There have been married bishops (e.g., Saint Peter) but even the Eastern Church ended the practiced of allowing married men to be made bishops extremely early in the Church's history.

The fact that the Conciliar sect allows for (permanent) deacons to be married is a break in the Western traditions, but it is not a break in sacred tradition. The fact that the Conciliar sect allows their deacons to marry after they are ordained, however, is a break in tradition.
It allows that?
TKGS wrote:
Should the Conciliar sect allow ordained priests (and, presumably bishops) to marry, it would represent a complete novelty in any entity claiming to be Catholic.
Indeed

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
II-II q. 186 a. 4 wrote:
Article 4. Whether perpetual continence is required for religious perfection?

Objection 1. It would seem that perpetual continence is not required for religious perfection. For all perfection of the Christian life began with Christ's apostles. Now the apostles do not appear to have observed continence, as evidenced by Peter, of whose mother-in-law we read Matthew 8:14. Therefore it would seem that perpetual continence is not requisite for religious perfection.

Objection 2. Further, the first example of perfection is shown to us in the person of Abraham, to whom the Lord said (Genesis 17:1): "Walk before Me, and be perfect." Now the copy should not surpass the example. Therefore perpetual continence is not requisite for religious perfection.

Objection 3. Further, that which is required for religious perfection is to be found in every religious order. Now there are some religious who lead a married life. Therefore religious perfection does not require perpetual continence.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Corinthians 7:1): "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." Now cleanness of flesh and spirit is safeguarded by continence, for it is said (1 Corinthians 7:3)4): "The unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in spirit and in body [Vulgate: 'both in body and in spirit]." Therefore religious perfection requires continence.

I answer that, The religious state requires the removal of whatever hinders man from devoting himself entirely to God's service. Now the use of sexual union hinders the mind from giving itself wholly to the service of God, and this for two reasons. First, on account of its vehement delectation, which by frequent repetition increases concupiscence, as also the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iii, 12): and hence it is that the use of venery withdraws the mind from that perfect intentness on tending to God. Augustine expresses this when he says (Solil. i, 10): "I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state." Secondly, because it involves man in solicitude for the control of his wife, his children, and his temporalities which serve for their upkeep. Hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:3)2,33): "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God: but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife."

Therefore perpetual continence, as well as voluntary poverty, is requisite for religious perfection. Wherefore just as Vigilantius was condemned for equaling riches to poverty, so was Jovinian condemned for equaling marriage to virginity.

Reply to Objection 1. The perfection not only of poverty but also of continence was introduced by Christ Who said (Matthew 19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven," and then added: "He that can take, let him take it." And lest anyone should be deprived of the hope of attaining perfection, he admitted to the state of perfection those even who were married. Now the husbands could not without committing an injustice forsake their wives, whereas men could without injustice renounce riches. Wherefore Peter whom He found married, He severed not from his wife, while "He withheld from marriage John who wished to marry" [Prolog. in Joan. among the supposititious works of St. Jerome].

Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxii), "the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage, one of which Abraham had in use, both of them in habit. For he lived chastely, and he might have been chaste without marrying, but it was not requisite then." Nevertheless if the patriarchs of old had perfection of mind together with wealth and marriage, which is a mark of the greatness of their virtue, this is no reason why any weaker person should presume to have such great virtue that he can attain to perfection though rich and married; as neither does a man unarmed presume to attack his enemy, because Samson slew many foes with the jaw-bone of an ass. For those fathers, had it been seasonable to observe continence and poverty, would have been most careful to observe them.

Reply to Objection 3. Such ways of living as admit of the use of marriage are not the religious life simply and absolutely speaking, but in a restricted sense, in so far as they have a certain share in those things that belong to the religious state.
But then people argue: "But St. Thomas is only talking about the religious! What about parish priests, etc.?"…

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:
TKGS wrote:
The fact that the Conciliar sect allows for (permanent) deacons to be married is a break in the Western traditions, but it is not a break in sacred tradition. The fact that the Conciliar sect allows their deacons to marry after they are ordained, however, is a break in tradition.
It allows that?


I was surprised when I found this out as well. My source was an article I read in my local archdiocesan paper which had an article about one of the "Permanent Deacons" of the archdiocese who was getting married. The article did not specifically state that there was any particular law on the issue nor did it identify that there had been any change in "discipline" but it was clear that the archbishop was supportive of the marriage. Unfortunately, I no longer have it so I cannot provide the evidence. I'm not even sure where I would look to find any actual disciplinary law or rule currently "in force" (if there are, indeed, any laws or rules that are in force) in the Conciliar sect.


Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
And the best argument, from a homeschooling mom:
Quote:
Why I don't think the married priesthood is a good idea, in general.... I think a lot of parishioners would be judging the pastor and his wife's family size... too big ("why should what WE put in the plate go to support all those kids?!? Oh, and he tells US to use NFP?!?") or too small ("they must be contracepting! Well, if Father and his Mrs. can limit their family size that way, why not US?!?") I'd hate to see the pastor's marital intimacies subjected to such close scrutiny, but I believe this would be the case. In this day and age, THAT is what it would look like.

:)

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Quote:
Why I don't think the married priesthood is a good idea, in general.... I think a lot of parishioners would be judging the pastor and his wife's family size... too big ("why should what WE put in the plate go to support all those kids?!? Oh, and he tells US to use NFP?!?") or too small ("they must be contracepting! Well, if Father and his Mrs. can limit their family size that way, why not US?!?") I'd hate to see the pastor's marital intimacies subjected to such close scrutiny, but I believe this would be the case. In this day and age, THAT is what it would look like.


It seems to me that at least practically speaking, a marriage vocation marriage is highly inadvisable for one who wants to devote his life to the priestly vocation. Ask a woman who has been devotedly married for a few years. They might say they don't see why not, but ask if they would like to see their husbands now switch and devote his life to the priestly ministry and its priorities, and they would/should be slower to respond. And I am not even going into the theological arguments. How about a man marrying a devoted Nun? Not me; I want my wife more accessible to my children and me. Not to the world. Selfish? Yes indeed. Ask my children. So maybe it is time to review the duties of a husband/father and wife/mother. Never mind the modernistic redefinitions and priorities in terms of professionals etc. Let's start with the basics.

PANDORA'S BOX here we come !!!


Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
csibf wrote:
It seems to me that at least practically speaking, a marriage vocation marriage is highly inadvisable for one who wants to devote his life to the priestly vocation. Ask a woman who has been devotedly married for a few years. They might say they don't see why not, but ask if they would like to see their husbands now switch and devote his life to the priestly ministry and its priorities, and they would/should be slower to respond. And I am not even going into the theological arguments. How about a man marrying a devoted Nun? Not me; I want my wife more accessible to my children and me. Not to the world. Selfish? Yes indeed. Ask my children. So maybe it is time to review the duties of a husband/father and wife/mother. Never mind the modernistic redefinitions and priorities in terms of professionals etc. Let's start with the basics.

PANDORA'S BOX here we come !!!
I've noticed the contraceptive mentality creeping in for those who say the clergy shouldn't be forced to be perpetually continent (as if the remedium concupiscientiæ, and not the sacrament, is the conjugal act) because the question really comes down to: Should a clergyman father biological children? If not, then isn't perpetual continence the only other option?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
From Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini, pp. 18 ff., I found a very good polemical, theological argument against priestly incontinency by Pope St. Gregory the Great's papal theologian, Bernold of Constance (ca. 1050-1100): "De prohibenda sacerdotum incontinentia."

Since simony and incontinency feed upon each other, Pope St. Gregory the Great specifically targeted clerical incontinency, making incontinent clerics cease their public ministry.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Your documentation is very good for defending the Church"a law on clerical celibacy. I think though, in this discussion to keep in mind that we are discussing a possible future act of a heretic antipope in regards to this law. If Francis does allow married clergy, it will be scandalous, but it will also further weaken his claim to the papacy in the minds of those who have not yet made up their mind about him.

Every action he takes to further his revolutionary ideas on Catholics, only weakens and exposes him.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Mike wrote:
I think though, in this discussion to keep in mind that we are discussing a possible future act of a heretic antipope in regards to this law.
Could a future pope define a dogma to be held with divine and Catholic faith that perpetual continence is essential for Holy Orders, or could such a definition only bind under ecclesiastical faith?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:
Mike wrote:
I think though, in this discussion to keep in mind that we are discussing a possible future act of a heretic antipope in regards to this law.
Could a future pope define a dogma to be held with divine and Catholic faith that perpetual continence is essential for Holy Orders, or could such a definition only bind under ecclesiastical faith?


No, it is not a matter of a defined truth. God did not reveal that celibacy for the clergy was absolutely necessary. The Eastern rites of the Church allow for married clergy, so long as the marriage was prior to the reception of major orders, that clergy could not remarry if their wife passed away, and a married priest could not become a bishop.

The Church could not have ever allowed such a practice if it was revealed by God that it is essential for holy orders that a cleric remain celibate.

By saying this, however, I am strongly in agreement with you that the law of celibacy for the Roman rite is a good law. There are so many reasons why it is good that it would take a lengthy post to list them all.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:11 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Mike wrote:
Alan Aversa wrote:
Mike wrote:
I think though, in this discussion to keep in mind that we are discussing a possible future act of a heretic antipope in regards to this law.
Could a future pope define a dogma to be held with divine and Catholic faith that perpetual continence is essential for Holy Orders, or could such a definition only bind under ecclesiastical faith?


No, it is not a matter of a defined truth. God did not reveal that celibacy for the clergy was absolutely necessary. The Eastern rites of the Church allow for married clergy, so long as the marriage was prior to the reception of major orders, that clergy could not remarry if their wife passed away, and a married priest could not become a bishop.

The Church could not have ever allowed such a practice if it was revealed by God that it is essential for holy orders that a cleric remain celibate.

By saying this, however, I am strongly in agreement with you that the law of celibacy for the Roman rite is a good law. There are so many reasons why it is good that it would take a lengthy post to list them all.
What about perpetual continence, though? The Church has never universally said that clerics can be incontinent. (Certainly, there was one famous deviation, the Council of Trullo, which an African council directly contradicted; see below.) Couldn't the Church define a dogma to be held by at least ecclesiastical faith that perpetual continence (judged by childlessness in the external forum), not necessarily celibacy (state of being single), is essential to being a cleric?


the Council of Trullo, which the East accepted, and the West didn't wrote:
The Quinisext Synod, or Synod ‘in Trullo’ (691), is of very special significance. It followed Justinian in requiring bishops to be separated from their wives (c. 12). This was to be done by common agreement before their consecration, and the wives would enter a monastery where they could become deaconesses (c. 48). The requirement of childlessness was ignored (this was abrogated by Emperor Leo VI two centuries later). Widespread ignorance among clergy of the laws governing marriage is acknowledged and traditional discipline re-asserted (c. 3). But married priests, deacons and subdeacons are authorized to have marital relations, except during the periods when they serve at the altar (c. 13). Priests in ‘barbarian’ lands who live in continence are required to separate from their wives (c. 30). With regard to c. 13, which is of special importance to subsequent tradition, two canonical authorities are invoked to authorize marital relations: c. 6 of the Apostolic Canons (with bishops, however, excluded) and the canons of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae, compiled in 419. The Codex, however, is clearly misinterpreted. The canon from the Synod of Carthage (390) which is quoted had declared perpetual continence (...continentes esse in omnibus) to be «what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself has observed». Here it is presented as saying the same of ‘temporary’ continence. The Trullan Synod is regarded in the East as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681-2), thus having supreme legislative authority. It has since remained the definitive statement on clerical marriage. Rome, on the other hand, immediately objected to the canons which were against Western discipline and to this day has not accepted them as belonging to the ecumenical heritage.51
(source)

Discussing these issues with Eastern Catholics really makes me think even they are still quasi-schismatic…

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Quote:
What about perpetual continence, though? The Church has never universally said that clerics can be incontinent. (Certainly, there was one famous deviation, the Council of Trullo, which an African council directly contradicted; see below.) Couldn't the Church define a dogma to be held by at least ecclesiastical faith that perpetual continence (judged by childlessness in the external forum), not necessarily celibacy (state of being single), is essential to being a cleric?


The Church does not require celibacy by law on the clergy of the eastern rites. The fact that the Church allows this practice means that it cannot be intrinsically wrong in and of itself. It is not part of the deposit of Faith. The Church cannot teach what has not been revealed.

The Church can however bind the clergy by law to remain unmarried and celibate. This is not a divine law, but an ecclesiastical law, as Our Lord gave St. Peter the power to bind and loosen.

As I said previously, the law of celibacy in the Roman Rite has been a good law, it is an ancient law, the Church in the West has thrived under this law, and I would be shocked if a true pope ever changed this. I am not saying that I deny that a true pope has the power to change the law, just that I don't see that ever happening.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:55 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Mike wrote:
Quote:
What about perpetual continence, though? The Church has never universally said that clerics can be incontinent. (Certainly, there was one famous deviation, the Council of Trullo, which an African council directly contradicted; see below.) Couldn't the Church define a dogma to be held by at least ecclesiastical faith that perpetual continence (judged by childlessness in the external forum), not necessarily celibacy (state of being single), is essential to being a cleric?


The Church does not require celibacy by law on the clergy of the eastern rites. The fact that the Church allows this practice means that it cannot be intrinsically wrong in and of itself. It is not part of the deposit of Faith. The Church cannot teach what has not been revealed.

The Church can however bind the clergy by law to remain unmarried and celibate. This is not a divine law, but an ecclesiastical law, as Our Lord gave St. Peter the power to bind and loosen.

As I said previously, the law of celibacy in the Roman Rite has been a good law, it is an ancient law, the Church in the West has thrived under this law, and I would be shocked if a true pope ever changed this. I am not saying that I deny that a true pope has the power to change the law, just that I don't see that ever happening.


I have been arguing the opposite in some other forums Mike. This issue even during my sedeplenist days would have been a clear issue for me to see a clear sign of a false Church, the changing of the constant official teaching of the Church on the matter. Although there have been periods where for all practical purposes the clergy sunk to the depths of Hell with regards to keeping incontinent and having "famous concubines." Good thing is that Catholic doctrine relies not on the opinion of men (majority or minority really matters little on whichever side of the debate).

Here is what I have gathered with those that are opposed to celibacy as mandatory, but rather optional, disciplinary and more heroic.

If the Eastern Church's are allowed to have married clergy, then the Universal law with respect to married clergy is optional.

Few Catholics are able to see that just because something is tolerated in a particular case, see for example the case of NFP in very extreme grave circumstances that it somehow is permissible or not binding in the Universal Church. The same goes with communion under both kinds, which we know is Ecclesiastical faith, yet the Church still made the Hussites be able to for the sake of peace and to draw them to the Unity of the Church permitted them to be able to receive under both kinds (there was bloody civil wars over that issue). Many were drawn into deeper heresies as a result of that one issue, but the important part to realize is that particular's do not change the Universal law in the Church. Rather they can be done out of clemency or to draw schismatics to the Church without destroying Dogma.

The Church did so very famously to the Eastern's with regards to the Filioque in the Creed with the Eastern Schismatics, allowing them to not mention it during the Divine Liturgy etc... Please study the Council of Florence, this is what I would say was the primary example of this, I remember that +Fellay had mentioned this in a conference as an excuse to go back with Rome despite "the major differences with the Romans." Of course there is a huge difference between this and that case, but it is interesting to note that some have taken notice of that. There was other issues that they also put under the rug so that there could be preserved among the Catholic faithful long term unity because the whole East almost went Schismatic remember that. Ever since the Council of Nicea for most of the time the Eastern's have been in schism with the Pope, think of the Acacian Schism and other Schsms they are simply endless to mention. From the year 330 to the Schism of Photius approximately only 200 of those years most of the East was in communion with the Apostolic See... This is during a period of 550 years... After Photius the East was very very close to schism and of course we know that everything erupted at 1054 with Celarus. We must be careful not to celebrate the errors of the Eastern's... Most Eastern Catholic's now for all practical purposes are indistinguishable from the Orthdoox, the only difference is that some of them still care to have some sort of rough figure of unity under the Pope. Everything they preach and teach is EQUIVALENT with the teaching of the Schismatics.

The Schismatics were bound to hold as true the Universal law of the Church with regards to these issues. So that despite them having permission to marry before orders, they would have to submit to the Church with respect to the Western Rite Catholics. If not they would be heretics... Particularly in the Crisis of the Church section of Cath Info, I have gone over this pretty in depth. Let me know what you think.

+Pax+

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Jorge wrote:

Quote:
I have been arguing the opposite in some other forums Mike. This issue even during my sedeplenist days would have been a clear issue for me to see a clear sign of a false Church, the changing of the constant official teaching of the Church on the matter. Although there have been periods where for all practical purposes the clergy sunk to the depths of Hell with regards to keeping incontinent and having "famous concubines." Good thing is that Catholic doctrine relies not on the opinion of men (majority or minority really matters little on whichever side of the debate).


I was not aware that the practice of allowing married clergy in the eastern rites has become controversial. I am actually shocked by this, as the matter has already been settled by the Church.

Quote:
If the Eastern Church's are allowed to have married clergy, then the Universal law with respect to married clergy is optional.


The Church allows this in the east, but all of the eastern rites combined are a small minority of the Church. The Roman rite Catholics have always made up the bulk of the Church, and the law of clerical celibacy has been shown throughout the centuries to be a good law.

I would also argue that the Church's law for the east Eastern Church is also good. I will never criticize the Church, or Her wisdom in her laws. The law against clerical marriage works very good for us, but the eastern rite Catholics would take great offense and scandal if you argued against the practice for them. These brothers in the Faith have lived under their own tradition in this matter, and it would be foolish to condemn it or push for its abolition.

Quote:
Few Catholics are able to see that just because something is tolerated in a particular case, see for example the case of NFP in very extreme grave circumstances that it somehow is permissible or not binding in the Universal Church. The same goes with communion under both kinds, which we know is Ecclesiastical faith, yet the Church still made the Hussites be able to for the sake of peace and to draw them to the Unity of the Church permitted them to be able to receive under both kinds (there was bloody civil wars over that issue). Many were drawn into deeper heresies as a result of that one issue, but the important part to realize is that particular's do not change the Universal law in the Church. Rather they can be done out of clemency or to draw schismatics to the Church without destroying Dogma.


Pope Pius XII's teaching on the rhythm was not a law, it was an official explanation from the pope on a moral matter. The speech he gave was published in the Acta, making his explanation a universal teaching, which certainly binds the consciences of Catholics to believe it.

I do not use the term, "NFP," as Pope Pius XII never used that term. The Church does not teach Catholics to plan their families, it is a bad term and should not be used by Catholics.

If the Pope ever allowed Communion under both kinds either universally throughout the Roman rite, or in particular circumstances, that is his right to so, he is Christ's Vicar, he can bind and loosen the laws of the Church as he sees fit.

It is not for us to question the wisdom of the Church in her laws. We should always trust the popes on these matters. The pope may know things that are not commonly known and base his decisions on multiple factors that are not readily known or observable. Secondly, the Pope has the charism of his office, he has special graces given to him by God to lead his Church. If a pope ever promulgated a law that I did not like, I would consider it my own pride as the problem, rather than the Church's law.

Quote:
The Church did so very famously to the Eastern's with regards to the Filioque in the Creed with the Eastern Schismatics, allowing them to not mention it during the Divine Liturgy etc... Please study the Council of Florence, this is what I would say was the primary example of this, I remember that +Fellay had mentioned this in a conference as an excuse to go back with Rome despite "the major differences with the Romans." Of course there is a huge difference between this and that case, but it is interesting to note that some have taken notice of that. There was other issues that they also put under the rug so that there could be preserved among the Catholic faithful long term unity because the whole East almost went Schismatic remember that. Ever since the Council of Nicea for most of the time the Eastern's have been in schism with the Pope, think of the Acacian Schism and other Schsms they are simply endless to mention. From the year 330 to the Schism of Photius approximately only 200 of those years most of the East was in communion with the Apostolic See... This is during a period of 550 years... After Photius the East was very very close to schism and of course we know that everything erupted at 1054 with Celarus


The fact that the Church authorities have acted benevolently to the schismatics, cannot be faulted. The Church's mission is to save souls, and any reasonable leniency in the law that could bring souls back from schism or heresy is a good thing. The blame of schism is always on the side of schismatics, it is a sick pride that infects some men. We can only wonder how many souls may have been saved because the Church has brought schismatics back to the Church. Even if they relapse back into schism over time, many souls during their time of reunion had the chance to live and die in the unity of the Church.

It would be a faulty interpretation of history to blame the Church or the popes for making reasonable concessions with the schismatics to bring them back to the Church. The blame of schism and heresy is always on the schismatics and heretics. The Church's benevolent concessions must not be blamed, as the Church's mission is to save souls, and the wisdom of her laws and acts must always be trusted.

Quote:
Most Eastern Catholic's now for all practical purposes are indistinguishable from the Orthdoox, the only difference is that some of them still care to have some sort of rough figure of unity under the Pope. Everything they preach and teach is EQUIVALENT with the teaching of the Schismatics


Perhaps, but what is the root cause of this? It seems to me that the eastern rites were peacefully in union with Rome in the pre-Vatican II days, and were I every way living as faithful Catholics. I am also familiar with the recent decline of the eastern rites, but I am convinced the problem stems from the influence and acts of the heretical antipopes and their minions. I do not find fault with their laws and rules approved by the Church regarding their priesthood or liturgy.

Quote:
The Schismatics were bound to hold as true the Universal law of the Church with regards to these issues. So that despite them having permission to marry before orders, they would have to submit to the Church with respect to the Western Rite Catholics. If not they would be heretics... Particularly in the Crisis of the Church section of Cath Info, I have gone over this pretty in depth. Let me know what you think.


The duty of all Catholics is to submit to the laws of the Church. To attack the Church's laws is to attack the Church. If a Catholic believes strongly that a law should be amended, he should in humility write to the pope explaining himself. It is for the pope alone to decide the course of action that he must take. If the pope decides that the law is to remain, a Catholic should happily accept that as God's Will spoken through His Vicar on earth. Likewise, if the Pope changes a law, the same as well, Catholics must always peacefully accept the laws of the Church.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Here's a very relevant passage from Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical Quo Graviora on the distinction between doctrine and discipline, which is also relevant in the light of Bergoglio's La Civiltà Cattolica interview:
Pope Gregory XVI wrote:
For many years there has been growing and spreading in this country the very false opinion, the result of the impious and absurd system of indifferentism, which holds that the Christian religion is capable of continually perfecting itself. And since the champions of this false opinion hesitate to apply this pretended perfectibility to the truths of faith, they do so to the external administration and discipline of the Church. And to give credit to their error they employ, for the most part not without inconsistency and fraud, the authority of Catholic theologians who, on occasion, establish this distinction between doctrine and discipline: that discipline is subject to change, doctrine remains always the same and is not subject to any modification. Once this is laid down, they state without any hesitation that on many points the discipline, the government, and the forms of external worship in use in the Church are no longer suitable to the character of our times, and that what is harmful to the progress and prosperity of the Catholic religion must be changed, (which is possible) without the teaching of faith and morals suffering any harm. Thus, under color of religious zeal and behind the mask of piety they introduce innovations, project reforms, devise a “regeneration” of the Church… Moreover, without realizing it, or pretending that they do not realize it, they are in direct contradiction to sound doctrine which they say they wish to reestablish and protect. For in fact, when they pretend that all the forms of the Church without distinction can be changed, are they not subjecting to this change those points of discipline which have their foundation in the divine law itself, which are joined to doctrines of faith by so close a bond that the rule of faith determines the rule of action?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Most Eastern Catholic's now for all practical purposes are indistinguishable from the Orthodox...

This statement of yours brings a couple of very interesting points to my mind: 1)In some documentation we have here of Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello's experiences when he was a military chaplain in the Italian Army in Russia during WWII, he describes, very carefully, a very interesting series of incidents when in Belarus.

One of the first things the Italian Army did whenever they moved to a "new" bivouac, they would always build a chapel, then would improve on it if their stay in one particular place became lengthened.

When the Abp (a simple priest then) walked up to the altar to begin his first Mass in Belarus, he took careful notice of the congregation: when he turned around at the first "Dominus Vobiscum", he was startled to see that the congregation had suddenly swollen to at least twice its original size, all of those added were Russian peasants, who were Russian Orthodox.

After Mass, he began to question some of them and discovered that as far as they were concerned, they were Catholics. They sincerely could see no difference in their Faiths. They asked him to allow them to receive the sacraments, and to have their dead buried in the consecrated Italian cemeteries.

Apparently other Italian military chaplains had had much the same experience, and they didn't know what to do about any of this. They went to their Military Ordinary and discussed this with him. The conclusion was, essentially (I don't know all the details) that if the people thought they were Catholics, then they should be treated as such.

Later, when the Italians were driven out of Russia, Pintonello was caught behind enemy lines. The Russian peasants gave him two cows to walk between, which hid him enough so that he made it back to friendly territory.

2) We have recently been in touch with a Russian woman who speaks very good English. She considers herself to be a Catholic, which is very unusual. Apparently, her mother, who is Jewish, joined the Catholic Church while the Reds were still in power. She and her daughter (our friend) would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments, first in the Catholic Church, then would go to the Orthodox Church and do the same, until the Orthodox priest told them not to. They saw no real difference between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, in somewhat the same manner as Pintonello's peasants. Our friend's husband was also of Jewish ancestry: he first joined the Catholic Church in Russia, but then being very much in love with the liturgy of the Orthodox, and not for any doctrinal reason whatever, switched to that faith. He paints and restores icons for all the Orthodox around there.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Ken Gordon wrote:
They saw no real difference between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church...


I guess this is a good time to display my ignorance for all to see. I don't see any real difference either. It seems to me that most of the doctrinal differences are more differences in semantics and the way the Catholics and Orthodox use terms rather than in the actual doctrinal content.

I have read that the Orthodox don't like the term "transubstantiation" nor do they care for the precise definitions given the Blessed Sacrament by the Roman Church. However, they do believe, in the essentials, the very same thing that Catholics believe but they are not willing to establish a precise moment that the "change" occurs. During the Divine Liturgy, the Orthodox teach, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. They are more loose on the precise definitions given by Roman authorities but they do not teach any heretical notion and they don't pin the moment of the event to a particular "form", as does the Catholic Church.

I have also read both Catholic and Orthodox explanations of the "filioque" and this is the one that really stumps me. As much as I can gather, the Eastern Churches objected to the insertion of the term by the Western Church since the term simply is not in the creed established at Nicea. Catholic explanations of the filioque, however, seem to indicate that the term is to be understood more loosely and that, on a doctrinal level, the same way the Orthodox understand the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

In issue after issue, the differences between Orthodox and Catholic tend to be political divisions or disagreements over how to express truths of the faith, the Roman Church demanding precision while precision is simply not quite so important to the Eastern mentality. In some respects, I wonder if Roman insistence on precise definition of all doctrine has some bearing on the fact that a multitude of heretical doctrines (i.e., Protestantism) arose in the West while such divisions have not occurred in the East.

In any event, I accept the fact that there is a separation and I accept that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. I just don't really understand it all.


Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
TKGS wrote:
I guess this is a good time to display my ignorance for all to see. I don't see any real difference either. It seems to me that most of the doctrinal differences are more differences in semantics and the way the Catholics and Orthodox use terms rather than in the actual doctrinal content.

I have read that the Orthodox don't like the term "transubstantiation" nor do they care for the precise definitions given the Blessed Sacrament by the Roman Church. However, they do believe, in the essentials, the very same thing that Catholics believe but they are not willing to establish a precise moment that the "change" occurs. During the Divine Liturgy, the Orthodox teach, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. They are more loose on the precise definitions given by Roman authorities but they do not teach any heretical notion and they don't pin the moment of the event to a particular "form", as does the Catholic Church.

I have also read both Catholic and Orthodox explanations of the "filioque" and this is the one that really stumps me. As much as I can gather, the Eastern Churches objected to the insertion of the term by the Western Church since the term simply is not in the creed established at Nicea. Catholic explanations of the filioque, however, seem to indicate that the term is to be understood more loosely and that, on a doctrinal level, the same way the Orthodox understand the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

I must confess that most of what you wrote above, although being news to me, is also logical from what little I know of the situation. It makes sense.

TKGS wrote:
In issue after issue, the differences between Orthodox and Catholic tend to be political divisions

This is exactly my feeling on these matters too. I might add, that the ordinary Russian Orthodox lay person, and even most simple priests, apparently see no real difference between their Faith and that of ours: it is the hierarchy which complains most and which causes the most troubles between us. In at least one case I know about, one of the Czars was absolutely going to convert to Catholicism. When the Russian Orthodox hierarchy learned of his decision, they raised so much cain about it that the entire country was in an uproar and the Czar in question did not follow through.

In another case I know of, one of the Russian Orthodox equivalent of a Roman Archbishop secretly converted to Catholicism after long and serious study. He was allowed by Rome to remain in his normal position, ministering to his people as he normally always did, and to keep his Catholicism secret until his death.

I will also repeat here what I said in another thread: a book I have read entitled "Russia's Catacomb Saints", written by a Russian doctor, Ivan Alexeeyev who escaped to the west just before he died, details many Russian Orthodox martyrs under the Reds, of whom I have no doubt whatever that those who died are in Heaven. Some of the incidents he details are most striking. One especially I will never forget deals with a group of Russian Orthodox nuns who absolutely refused to have anything whatever to do with the Communists, and resolutely suffered for it.

This book has recently become extremely hard to get for political reasons.

The Russian Orthodox also firmly believe that "...the Greeks were never with us..." as I recently read on one of their websites.

Which brings up another point: in a book I have here of St. Robert Bellarmine's, the prelate who compiled it, in a footnote, makes it abundantly clear that the Greeks have always been a very serious problem for the Church. As he says, "...the Romans are less subtle (meaning they see things more plainly) than the Greeks...." and "...thus the Greek Church was always full of schism...". All of the early schisms which struck the Church came from the Greeks.

TKGS wrote:
or disagreements over how to express truths of the faith, the Roman Church demanding precision while precision is simply not quite so important to the Eastern mentality. In some respects, I wonder if Roman insistence on precise definition of all doctrine has some bearing on the fact that a multitude of heretical doctrines (i.e., Protestantism) arose in the West while such divisions have not occurred in the East.

Yet this lack of precision in the Greeks so often resulted in strange and varied schism with them which one never found in the Romans. Also, I do not agree that the Roman insistence on precision had anything whatever to do with the Protestant idiocy.

TKGS wrote:
In any event, I accept the fact that there is a separation and I accept that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. I just don't really understand it all.

Well,you are not alone in this either. I feel the same way. Yet, according to several Catholic prophecies, the restoration of the Catholic Church "...will come out of the North...", which in the language of the time, meant Russia. It is a very great mystery to me.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Ken Gordon wrote:
The Russian Orthodox also firmly believe that "...the Greeks were never with us..." as I recently read on one of their websites.

Which brings up another point: in a book I have here of St. Robert Bellarmine's, the prelate who compiled it, in a footnote, makes it abundantly clear that the Greeks have always been a very serious problem for the Church. As he says, "...the Romans are less subtle (meaning they see things more plainly) than the Greeks...." and "...thus the Greek Church was always full of schism...". All of the early schisms which struck the Church came from the Greeks.

TKGS wrote:
or disagreements over how to express truths of the faith, the Roman Church demanding precision while precision is simply not quite so important to the Eastern mentality. In some respects, I wonder if Roman insistence on precise definition of all doctrine has some bearing on the fact that a multitude of heretical doctrines (i.e., Protestantism) arose in the West while such divisions have not occurred in the East.

Yet this lack of precision in the Greeks so often resulted in strange and varied schism with them which one never found in the Romans. Also, I do not agree that the Roman insistence on precision had anything whatever to do with the Protestant idiocy.

Yes, the Nestorians, Monophysites, Eutychians, and all those other Greek heresies were certainly evidence that the subtle Greek mind tended toward coming up with the weirdest ideas and heresies. And among Western Christians, I'd say the Germans are "our" Greeks: not just Luther, but Ratzo, Hans Kung, Immanuel Kant, Hegel, etc.
Ken Gordon wrote:
TKGS wrote:
In any event, I accept the fact that there is a separation and I accept that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. I just don't really understand it all.

Well,you are not alone in this either. I feel the same way. Yet, according to several Catholic prophecies, the restoration of the Catholic Church "...will come out of the North...", which in the language of the time, meant Russia. It is a very great mystery to me.

Russia certainly looks like a possibility. Although, as the Protestant churches of Northern Europe, most obviously the Church of England, get crazy liberal, endorsing female bishops and unnatural so-called "marriage", they seem to be causing a reaction of a lot of their people into starting to look at traditional Catholicism. For example, the Swedish church is crazy liberal, while the Danish is quite conservative, and there seems to be far more interest in traditional Catholicism in Sweden than in Denmark. (Norway is in between the two.)

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be too much interest in traditional Catholicism in Russia, and I suppose we may blame it on the fact that the (Novus Ordo) "Catholic" Church appears ungodly liberal to them, and consequently they don't want to have anything to do with it.


Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Mike wrote:
I am not saying that I deny that a true pope has the power to change the law, just that I don't see that ever happening.
Do you "see that ever happening" that a pope define clerical celibacy and perpetual continence to be held be ecclesiastical faith? I true pope certainly can do this, can't he?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sun Sep 22, 2013 7:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:
Mike wrote:
I am not saying that I deny that a true pope has the power to change the law, just that I don't see that ever happening.
Do you "see that ever happening" that a pope define clerical celibacy and perpetual continence to be held be ecclesiastical faith? I true pope certainly can do this, can't he?


I do not believe that the mandatory clerical celibacy is found in the Deposit of Faith. It has been a longstanding tradition in the Roman rite, and it falls under the disciplinary laws of the Church, it is not a doctrinal matter. If the Church taught that clerical celibacy was always mandatory as God has revealed it, then the practice of allowing the eastern rites the practice of married clergy, would have been wrong. The Church would have approved of a practice which was against the faith. Such contradictions are impossible.

To specifically answer your question: I do not see that ever happening.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:42 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4337
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:
Do you "see that ever happening" that a pope define clerical celibacy and perpetual continence to be held be ecclesiastical faith?


Alan, what's the proposition that you are suggesting could be proposed to be held by ecclesiastical faith?

If it were a qualified one, such as that celibacy is a superior mode of life for clerics, I think it could be so proposed. Indeed, I think this is already clear from the ordinary universal magisterium. But if it were the proposition that celibacy is mandatory for all clerics by divine law, which is what I take Mike to be reacting to, then I agree with him, the proposition is not one that the Church could possibly propose.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
John Lane wrote:
Alan Aversa wrote:
Do you "see that ever happening" that a pope define clerical celibacy and perpetual continence to be held be ecclesiastical faith?


Alan, what's the proposition that you are suggesting could be proposed to be held by ecclesiastical faith?
That perpetual continence is essential for clerics, and that celibacy is, as you say below, "a superior mode of life for clerics."
John Lane wrote:
If it were a qualified one, such as that celibacy is a superior mode of life for clerics, I think it could be so proposed. Indeed, I think this is already clear from the ordinary universal magisterium. But if it were the proposition that celibacy is mandatory for all clerics by divine law, which is what I take Mike to be reacting to, then I agree with him, the proposition is not one that the Church could possibly propose.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4337
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:
That perpetual continence is essential for clerics, and that celibacy is, as you say below, "a superior mode of life for clerics."


Can you not see that these are two radically different propositions?

The first is evidently insupportable, as Mike pointed out, but the second seems to me to be undeniable. Why else would the Church make it the law for the vast majority of her clerics, for most of her history? Also affecting this view is the knowledge that consecrated virginity is a more perfect state of life. This truth puts the discussion of clerical celibacy into a highly coloured context.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
John Lane wrote:
Alan Aversa wrote:
That perpetual continence is essential for clerics, and that celibacy is, as you say below, "a superior mode of life for clerics."
Can you not see that these are two radically different propositions?
Yes, they are different propositions. The latter certainly has already been defined:
Trent, Session XXIV wrote:
Canon X.—Si quis dixerit, statum, conjugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis vel cælibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut cælibatu, quam jungi matrimonio: anathema sit.

Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.
Perpetual continence for clerics is law even in the 1983 Code (Canon 277), although the Eastern Code doesn't mention it, except for bishops.

The 1917 Code says:
1917 Code, Canon 132 wrote:
§1. Clerics constituted in major orders are prohibited from marriage and are bound by the obligation of observing chastity [= "perfect and perpetual continence," as the '83 Code makes explicit], so that those sinning against this are sicrilegious, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 214, §1 ["§ 1. Clericus qui metu gravi coactus ordinem sacrum recepit nec postea, remoto metu, eandem ordinationem ratam habuit saltem tacite per orainis exercitium, volens tamen per talem actum obligationibus clericalibus se subiicere ad statum laicalem, legitime probata coactione et ratihabitionis defectu, sententia iudicis redigatur sine ullis caelibatus ac horarum canonicarum obligationibus."].
§2. Minor clerics can enter marriage, but, unless the marriage was null because of inflicted force and fear, they drop from the clerical state by the law itself.
§3. A married man who, even in good faith, takes up major orders without apostolic dispensation is prohibited from exercising those orders.
(source of translation)

II-II q. 186 a. 4, quoted above, gives reasons why.

Never has the Universal Church said clerics can violate "perfect and perpetual continence," and even the Eastern Code says at least bishops must be perpetually continent; thus, that "perfect and perpetual continence" is essential for clerics certainly seems definable, and it certainly seems expedient that a true pope define such a dogma.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:

Quote:
Trent, Session XXIV wrote:
Canon X.—Si quis dixerit, statum, conjugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis vel cælibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut cælibatu, quam jungi matrimonio: anathema sit.

Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.


Of course, but who is disputing this?

Alan Aversa wrote:
Quote:
Perpetual continence for clerics is law even in the 1983 Code (Canon 277), although the Eastern Code doesn't mention it, except for bishops.

Quote:
The 1917 Code says:
1917 Code, Canon 132 wrote:
§1. Clerics constituted in major orders are prohibited from marriage and are bound by the obligation of observing chastity [= "perfect and perpetual continence," as the '83 Code makes explicit], so that those sinning against this are sicrilegious, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 214, §1 ["§ 1. Clericus qui metu gravi coactus ordinem sacrum recepit nec postea, remoto metu, eandem ordinationem ratam habuit saltem tacite per orainis exercitium, volens tamen per talem actum obligationibus clericalibus se subiicere ad statum laicalem, legitime probata coactione et ratihabitionis defectu, sententia iudicis redigatur sine ullis caelibatus ac horarum canonicarum obligationibus."].
§2. Minor clerics can enter marriage, but, unless the marriage was null because of inflicted force and fear, they drop from the clerical state by the law itself.
§3. A married man who, even in good faith, takes up major orders without apostolic dispensation is prohibited from exercising those orders.


It is in the Code because it is the law of the Church, a disciplinary law that pertains to all clerics of the Roman Rite.

Alan Aversa wrote:
Quote:
II-II q. 186 a. 4, quoted above, gives reasons why.


St. Thomas is discussing the religious state in the cited section you gave. We are talking only about secular clergy.

As I said before, the Church could not have ever allowed the practice of married clergy if it contradicted what God revealed. We are not talking about perfection, or what is better, only what is permissible.

Let me ask you something: Do you believe that the Pope is supreme in all matters of disciplinary law, and that the Pope has the power to bind and to loosen the laws of the Church? Do you believe that a pope has the power to loosen the law of the Roman Rite secular clergy and allow married clergy, as it exists with the Eastern Rites?

This seems to me to be the crux of the issue.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:15 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Mike wrote:
Do you believe that the Pope is supreme in all matters of disciplinary law, and that the Pope has the power to bind and to loosen the laws of the Church?
What is a "disciplinary law"? Pope Gregory XVI, in the Quo Graviora quote I gave above, seems to think "this distinction between doctrine and discipline"—"that discipline is subject to change, doctrine remains always the same and is not subject to any modification"—is a false distinction some theologians make.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Theological works on clerical celibacy?
Alan Aversa wrote:
Mike wrote:
Do you believe that the Pope is supreme in all matters of disciplinary law, and that the Pope has the power to bind and to loosen the laws of the Church?
What is a "disciplinary law"? Pope Gregory XVI, in the Quo Graviora quote I gave above, seems to think "this distinction between doctrine and discipline"—"that discipline is subject to change, doctrine remains always the same and is not subject to any modification"—is a false distinction some theologians make.


Alan,

This following explains the definition of the Church's disciplinary laws, note the boldfaced parts.

(taken from Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, Rev. Anthony Cekada)

P. Hermann (1908)
“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments, such as Communion under one species.…
“The Church in her general discipline, however, is said to be infallible in this sense: that nothing can be found in her disciplinary laws which is against the faith or good morals, or which can tend [vergere] ei-ther to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful.
“That the Church is infallible in her discipline follows from her very mission. The Church’s mission is to preserve the integral faith and to lead people to salvation by teaching them to preserve whatever Christ commanded. But if she were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, the Church would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.” Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. 4th ed. Rome: Della Pace 1908. 1:258.

A. Dorsch (1928)
“The Church is also rightfully held to be infallible in her disciplinary decrees…
By disciplinary decrees are are understood all those things which pertain to the ruling of the Church, insofar as it is distinguished from the magisterium. Referred to here, then, are ecclesiastical laws which the Church laid down for the universal Church in order to regulate divine worship or to direct the Chris-tian life.” Insitutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis. Innsbruck: Rauch 1928. 2:409.

R.M. Schultes (1931)
“The Infallibility of the Church in Enacting Disciplinary Laws. Disciplinary laws are defined as ‘ecclesiastical laws laid down to direct Christian life and worship.’…
“The question of whether the Church is infallible in establishing a disciplinary law concerns the substance of universal disciplinary laws — that is, whether such laws can be contrary to a teaching of faith or morals, and so work to the spiritual harm of the faithful,…
“Thesis. The Church, in establishing universal laws, is infallible as regards their substance.
“The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Through disciplinary laws, the Church teaches about matters of faith and morals, not doctrinally or theoretically, but practically and effectively. A disciplinary law therefore involves a doctrinal judgement.…
“The reason, therefore, and foundation for the Church’s infallibility in her general discipline is the intimate connection between truths of faith or morals and disciplinary laws.
“The principal matter of disciplinary laws is as follows: a) worship.…” De Ecclesia Catholica. Paris: Lethielleux 1931. 314-7.

Valentino Zubizarreta (1948)
“Corollary II. In establishing disciplinary laws for the univeral Church, the Church is likewise infallible, in such a way that she would never legislate something which would contradict true faith or good morals.
“Church discipline is defined as ‘that legislation or collection of laws which direct men how to worship God rightly and how to live a good Christian life.…
“Proof for the Corollary. It has been shown above that the Church enjoys infallibility in those things which concern faith and morals, or which are necessarily required for their preservation. Disciplinary laws, prescribed for the universal Church in order to worship God and rightly promote a good Christian life, are implicitly revealed in matters of morals, and are necessary to preserve faith and good morals. Therefore, the Corollary is proved.” Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica. 4th ed. Vitoria: El Carmen 1948. 1:486.

Serapius Iragui (1959)
“Outside those truths revealed in themselves, the object of the magisterium’s infallibility includes other truths which, while not revealed, are nevertheless necessary to integrally preserve the deposit of the faith, correctly explain it, and effectively define it.…
“D) Disciplinary Decrees. These decrees are universal ecclesiastical laws which govern man’s Chris-tian life and divine worship. Even though the faculty of establishing laws pertains to the power of jurisdiction, nevertheless the power of the magisterium is considered in these laws under another special aspect, insofar as there must be nothing in these laws opposed to the natural or positive law. In this respect, we say that the judgement of the Church is infallible…
“1°) This is required by the nature and purpose of infallibility, for the infallible Church must lead her subjects to sanctification through a correct exposition of doctrine. Indeed, if the Church in her universally binding decrees would impose false doctrine, by that very fact men would be turned away from salvation, and the very nature of the true Church would be placed in peril.
“All this, however, is repugnant to the prerogative of infallibility with which Christ endowed His Church. Therefore, when the Church establishes disciplinary laws, she must be infallible.” Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 1:436, 447.

Van Noort (1959)
The Church’s infallibility extends to… ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living.… But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law wish would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.…
If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life. Dogmatic Theology. 2:91.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:10 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.