Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Tonks said:Pretty much. Catholics and Protestants agree that at one point he was married. However, no discussion in GT is complete without a debate about why Catholics do the things they way they do.
lismore said:So Peter being married means something to doctrine or interpretation of doctrine?
If the celibacy came later due to tradition, does that mean a new tradition could come and take it back again to married popes?
Tonks said:The latter half of my statement was made in jest.
Celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church - it is not doctrine or dogma - and only within the Latin Rite. Though, to be honest, Eastern Rite Catholics in the US do not really ordain married priests. While it can be changed that does not mean that it will, of course.
I assume, of course, you know the reasons behind the initial promulgation of the priestly celibacy law.
lismore said:No Friend, I was not born then. I could not be sure it would just be by reading. No 2 books would say the same.
But thanks for your message
Tonks said:I suppose I could concede that the theology behind it is open to interpretation but the actual historical timeline is objective fact - and quite well documented. Not that it really matters - the practice is not going to change anytime soon discipline or not.
lismore said:It depends. If there is enough grass roots support for change then the tradition the discipline is grounded on will change.
Lismore
Tonks said:True. However, do not confuse this tradition (small 't') with Tradition (Sacred Tradition) as they are two totally different things. The broader, lowercase useage, is appropriate in this instance as this isn't really a Catholic "Scripture + Tradition" discussion.
lismore said:I think what I meant is that a pope faced with an issue in tradition (with either a big or little t) that cannot stand any more, then the pope would give a ruling on this and in a few years this would be a new tradition. Of course im not meaning this as a criticism of your church, far from it, I just think that issues arise that need dealt with and dealt with in their context.
Lismore
holeinone said:No finer mind than Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologia II-IIa, 88, 11)had provided stubborn opposition to those who saw celibacy rulings as part of divine law. Thomas contended that the celibacy requirement for Catholic priests was merely Church law that could be reversed by any time by papal or conciliar authority. (MacGregor pages 108-109)
Robbie_James_Francis said:Which is exactly what the Catholics in this thread thus far have said. No-one has claimed that celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite is a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church because it is not. It is a matter of Church law and if a Council or the Pope wanted to change it tomorrow it could be done easily.
The current Code of Canon Law (1983) for the Latin Rite of the Church has a great many rules and regulations in it, and not one as far as I am aware deals with doctrines or dogmas. Priestly celibacy is one matter of temporal, changeable canon law.
Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to think that these laws are good, and many Catholics believe that priestly celibacy should be changed. They are not dissenters or heretics for thinking this. Catholics must obey Canon Law but it is not a matter of Faith and we don't have to believe that it's good. However, many Catholics agree with priestly celibacy, and all they people have been doing in this thread is explaining the reasons behind it and why they support it.
The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is one among 23, and it is the only one as far as I am aware that requires priests to be celibate, as different Rites have different Codes of Canon Law.
Scott_LaFrance said:Okay, back to the OP. Peter was married, now what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?