How does the case of Vigilius not disprove Vatican I?

[Markie Boy]

In all fairness I have not looked too deep into the concept of celibate bishops for the Orthodox - I am just learning. Much of Orthodoxy does seem to line up better with the early Church so far to me, and they have helped me understand things so much better than Catholicism.

Rome keeps making odd left turns - changing order of sacraments about 100 years ago as one of the latest.

 

[Rhamiel]

You are right - the last 50 years in Catholicism have been embarrassing. I'm not familiar with it before then, but my parents describe it as not much joy and community - mostly strict, mean, and guilt.

I'm not a fan of celibate bishops in the Orthodox, but I think that is one of their innovations as it does not jive with 1 Timothy ch. 3 either. And we know in the first 1,000 years there were married popes, so both East and West had married bishops. God does not seem to mandate celibacy for any of his clergy, man does.

do you think it looked like modern Protestantism where it was normal to have young Pastors with two or three young kids running around after the service?
I have not seen anything that says it was like this in the West, ever, yes there were cases of married priests, but this was never the norm, some were older men who were married but decided to go without sex once he became a priest, some were in far flung corners of the West where it was difficult to maintain control and people did what they wanted (think of the Wild West with togas) more and more celibacy was held as the norm for the West

As for our issues before Vatican II, yes there were serious problems, this was mostly (but not only) the problem of Modernism, it did not start at Vatican II, that was the major victory of modernism, it had been fighting for a generation

I am not trying to look at the past with rose colored glasses, the Church is a hospital for sinners and will always have hurt people inside it needing help, but we can look at things like Mass attendance, the number of priests, the number of nuns, and see that the Church was much healthier then, I would also recommend reading Catholic books from the Counter-Reformation up till the early 1950’s

 

[Markie Boy]

do you think it looked like modern Protestantism where it was normal to have young Pastors with two or three young kids running around after the service?
I have not seen anything that says it was like this in the West, ever, yes there were cases of married priests, but this was never the norm, some were older men who were married but decided to go without sex once he became a priest, some were in far flung corners of the West where it was difficult to maintain control and people did what they wanted (think of the Wild West with togas) more and more celibacy was held as the norm for the West

As for our issues before Vatican II, yes there were serious problems, this was mostly (but not only) the problem of Modernism, it did not start at Vatican II, that was the major victory of modernism, it had been fighting for a generation

I am not trying to look at the past with rose colored glasses, the Church is a hospital for sinners and will always have hurt people inside it needing help, but we can look at things like Mass attendance, the number of priests, the number of nuns, and see that the Church was much healthier then, I would also recommend reading Catholic books from the Counter-Reformation up till the early 1950’s

No - I realize we have to go back 1,000 years to find openly married clergy as a common thing.

After they ended that and replaced it with mandatory celibacy it was said there were so many with "housekeepers" and such that if they actually enforced things it would deprive the people of their pastors.

 

[TheLostCoin]

In all fairness I have not looked too deep into the concept of celibate bishops for the Orthodox - I am just learning. Much of Orthodoxy does seem to line up better with the early Church so far to me, and they have helped me understand things so much better than Catholicism.

Rome keeps making odd left turns - changing order of sacraments about 100 years ago as one of the latest.

The idea of mandatory celibacy for the bishops is connected to mandatory celibacy from Monasticism; because (unlike many regions of the world today) monks played such a pivotal leadership role for Christians in the Early Church, in being the people we look up to and aspire to, as they dedicate their entire lives for levels of Spiritual Progress that aren't possible in this world (as those who read Christ's Gospel will sure discover), and as such, many of the practices of Monasticism blended together with Fasting Rules for Christians as well as Celibacy. We know that in pre-Norman England and Ireland, the monks played a very important lives in the people that surrounded them. It's often the case that a monk will become a Bishop, and vice-versa (like Saint Gregory the Great or Saint Augustine of Canterbury), and it's not a bad system because it relates back to Plato's concept of the "Philosopher King," where those most fit to rule are those who have restrained their passions and can act rationally, and have a deeper understanding of the world than an irrational, passionate brute.

It's not something completely pragmatic because of sin, but it's better than no system at all.

 

[Rhamiel]

No - I realize we have to go back 1,000 years to find openly married clergy as a common thing.

After they ended that and replaced it with mandatory celibacy it was said there were so many with "housekeepers" and such that if they actually enforced things it would deprive the people of their pastors.

No, my point was that even over 1,000 years ago it was not common in the West, it was not a total 100% ban, but it was far from common, even when the Early Church was being persecuted by Pagan Rome we saw the norm of a celibate priesthood
In the East about half the priests are celibate, the West is not the East, at no point in our history was it close to 50% married priests