Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 793
    MEMBERS
  • 41423
    MESSAGES
  • 90
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Catholicism vs Change   Religion

Started Feb-13 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 4160 views.
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-13

adwil

From: adwil

Feb-13

We have some married priests in the UK.

In reply toRe: msg 2
Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

Feb-13

Catholics???

adwil

From: adwil

Feb-13

Di (amina046) said:

Catholics???

Yes. They're priestly converts mainly from the Anglican tradition. The ordination of women and recognition of same sex marriage has persuaded some Anglican traditionalists and sometimes their congregations to switch to the Catholic Church. 

"Those who followed Pope Benedict XVI's overtures to disaffected Anglicans in 2009 know that married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, thus becoming married Catholic priests."

https://www.learnreligions.com/married-catholic-priests-3970735

In reply toRe: msg 4
Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

Feb-13

Wow! I had no idea. Good for them and the church. I always thought that no unmarried priest should get a parish.

adwil

From: adwil

Feb-14

Di (amina046) said:

Good for them and the church.

"Details of the proposals for Anglicans were published by Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a body which centuries ago ran the inquisition into heretics.

They follow the announcement last month of an 'Apostolic Constitution' designed to allow tens of thousands of disaffected Anglicans to return to Rome and yet keep their own priests, parishes and traditions.

The invitation is designed to attract high church Anglicans angry at the advance of gay rights in Anglican churches around the world and now further provoked by the prospect of women bishops in the Church of England.

Those who go over will be led by 'ordinaries' - effectively their own bishops, who will profess allegiance to Rome and work closely with Catholic bishops.

They will, however, have full authority over their own congregations of former Anglicans.

An ordinary may 'petition the Roman pontiff for the admission of married men' to the priesthood 'on a case by case basis.' Unmarried men who are ordained under the new system must however remain celibate."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226449/Pope-allows-married-men-priests-bid-attract-Anglican-recruits.html

In reply toRe: msg 6
Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

Feb-14

That was very interesting. thank you.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-16

I read the attached URL, and find it inaccurate. There are married priests, serving RC parishes, my exwife is married to one. Some have been ordained since Frances has become pope. Where the conservatives seem to have won, is not that Frances is against this, but for whatever reason, has not taken a stand in favor of it. So in terms of "sin" his is not a sin of comisión but a sin of omission. 

Here is a parallel example of the logic fault in the above news item. When immature children get caught, they often say "my mother lets me do it" when in fact the truth would be "my mother failed to stop me from doing it".

On the practical side, the pope is not infalible, and never has been. The concept of papal infallability only became doctrine less then 200 years ago, and there are so many subjunctive clauses in the document that few seem to recognize, that many use the words of a pope that do not meet the criteria, as an example of papal error, contrary to doctrine. At present, I can´t think of anything published by the last three popes that meet the "infallable" criteria. Related to this is a frustrating problema in a democracy. While laws are made by legislatures, signed by presidents, they often do not have the desired effecte, because these come from what is called the administrative code, which is written by bureaucrats, often undermining the legislative intent.

In theory, the pope is an elected dictator. The problema is that between what he wants to happen and what the faithful recieve, is an unelected tenured conservative curia, who, after the pope speaks, say "Yes, Holliness but …" and go their own way. In democracies such as the U.S. the equivalent is the White House staff, and the cabinate, who often have a different political agenda, and much easier to be removed by an unhappy president because they have no tenure and are not protected by civil service regulations.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-16

Catholic¿ is a valid question, but based on a lack of knowledge of the English tradition. In theory, the 12 apostles became the first bishops, and it takes a bishop to ordain a priest.

So here is where the problema arises, historicly bishops were elected by the canons of the diocese, or some similar body (RC cardinals are canons of Roman churches and they elect the Pope as bishop of Roman). In practice over the ages, nations had different ways of accomplishing this. In England, by concordat (agreement or treaty with Rome) the King had a say in who became a bishop or archbishop. Today in Spain, the King has the same right, but the last head of state to exercise it was Franco the dictator, as regent. Usually where the King had the right, he usually took the advice of his "episcopal council" (episcopal in this case has no connection to Episcopalians). In some cases, recomendation was three candidates and the pope had to pick one of the three. The unmarried priesthood is not based on scripture but simply an administrative rule. For example in the Orthodox tradition parish priests are usually married, but not bishops who are chosen from priests who are unmarried monks. In Scotland the last prereformation primate, Cardinal Beaton, was married and had a family. The former Italian royal family, was descended from a cardinal who was not a priest. In England, Henry II, had a tutor, friend, drinking buddy, who was only a deacon, when the job of Archbishop of Canterbury, became vacant, So the King, using his power forced his election by the Canons of Canterbury Cathedrel, as a result this deacon passed from deacon to priest to bishop to archbishop in a matter of days. The problema was that he took his new job too seriously, so Henry II had him assasinated..

In the case of your question, when Henry VIII broke from Rome, the process was not so fixed that he was able to affectively maintain the apostolic succesion without the pope´s approval. So as Canturbury continued to consecreat bishops, who continue to ordain priests, under those conditions priests in the Episcopal church are just as much priests as those in the Roman church.

Here is an aside related to the American Revolution. The 13 American colonies were basicly chartered companies with headquarters in London, so the colonial priests were ordained under the authority of the Bishop of London, or other English bishops. After the American revolution, English bishops, as members of the House of Lords, would be traitos to the King if they ordained American rebels as priests, so over the years as the pre revolution American priests died off, the Episcopal church in America would dissolve. However there was also a Reformation in Scotland, which went from RC to Episcopal Church of Scotland then Presbyterian, leaving the episcopal establishment in Scotland, independent of England, but not a part of the government. So the Americans, to maintain apostolic succession sent a Boston priest, Seabury, to the Aberdeen, to be consecrated a bishop there, from where he returned to the U.S. to ordain American eiscopalians as priests. 

There is also a language problema in that both RCs and Piskys accept the Apostles creed which makes them Catholic, though not Roman Catholic, thus having legitimate priests. In recent times there has been a división within the Episcopal church over several issues, as a result some Episcopal priests, with or without their parishes, have converted to Rome, and as some of these priests were already married, Rome has accepted them as priests in the Roman rite without any problems.

The RC church has seen many changes since the 1960s with Vatican II, so if one attends mass at a "high" episcopal church, the service is closer to the traditional Roman service then at an RC church. My university town, St Andrews had two episcopal churches one high, one low. In the high church the priest not only wore the same vestiments not seen in many low episcopal churches, or current RC churches, but said mass facing East instead of west (facing the congregation), and based on old RC traditions, the high church is called "smells and bells" - today rare in RC churches, and non existent in low episcopal. An oddity in St Andrews is that some of the text, and hymns are still in Greek and Latin..

In reply toRe: msg 6
RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-16

I posted before reading yours, and disagree with one point, and that is if a priest wants to marry or a candidate is already married, the first step is permission of his local bishop, who grants permission subject to approval by Rome. Because of the shortage of priests in varios parts of the world, no approval would mean no priest, so Rome has the power to, and sometimes grants this. 

Regardine female deacons, they existed during the first 300 years after Christ, and in fact, if not in name they do today. Using my own parish in Spain. When I was a kid, women were not allowed inside the sanctuary (except to do "women´s work" - cleaning up after men). The break through came when women defined as "Eucharistic ministers" became involved in that part of the service. When my parish church here was built, it had 20 priests, serving 21 altars, by 1950 there were 10, when I arrived there was 1 who had some nuns or laity serving as Eucharistic ministers. When that priest died, we got a retired missionary, who not only took care of our parish church, but a few village chapels. Sometimes he did not make it back in time for services, so a lay woman eucharistic minister ran the service, no different then a priest, except for the consecration, and she did not wear any special costume. That priest died, so now we have half a priest, because his replacement lives in his original parish, but also serves ours. This means that most of the time on week days this woman does the local service, preaches, etc. If Francis re-establishes deaconesses, it would make no difference, except that this woman would simply have the title for work she has been performing for over 10 years.

Eventually Rome Will have to give in, not just because of the shortage of priests, but because to fill the vacancies, the church has lowered its standards for seminarians, and the result is an increase in unfit priests causing scandals and other problems. 

TOP