| James Gavan 2008-02-18, 6:56 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:40:42 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
><judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
>
'Yet in Africa most priests are married ". That one was news to me. Do
you have a source ? Steve answers it below, but more detail coming up.
It's a big topic because it's not strictly theological in the sense
that the Bible must be taken, but is to do with
the perceived way of running a large administration for a
catholic(universal) church, and although there are rules, there are
exceptions.
>Priests of the Roman Catholic church are not permitted to marry no
>matter where they live. An African Archbishop, Archbishop Emmanuel
>Milingo, ordained four married men as priests. He was excommunicated
>by the Roman See for doing this. He continues to appeal to the
>Vatican to change its stance, but he remains excommunicated.
>
>
>
In the Latin rite a priest is ordained, (three steps, subdeacon, deacon
and priest), receiving the Holy Spirit to act as a pastor. "Once a
priest, always a priest". Having received the Holy Spirit, no temporal
power can remove that gift of ordination (the Sacrament of Holy Orders).
A corollary, a human once baptized cannot be 'un-baptized'. However, an
ordained priest can be forbidden by a bishop from performing his
priestly duties for some religious transgression; he cannot officiate
in a church and is refused the right to offer the sacraments. It's not
very common practice, but can happen. An example from some ten years
back; (20/20, Dateline or some such TV programme covered it), a US
priest who was, I'm assuming, also a homosexual, wanted to offer mass on
behalf of gays. He even went to Rome to try and get an audience with the
pope - no luck. I don't know the outcome but I would fairly safely
assume he was forbidden as I've outlined above.
Possibly the ones more likely to be blacklisted, are learned
theologians who stray from official dogma, and wont backtrack on their
assertions, usually resulting
in a drawn out inquiry in Rome, to arrive at a decision.
If interested, this covers the topic. It's a long article , but I'll try
and summarize :-
Celibacy - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
Before considering the examples you quoted above, we should cover what
the Roman Catholic church embraces. There are two divisions, Western and
Eastern; the Eastern should not be  with the Orthodox although
Eastern (Catholic) and Orthodox groups overlap geographically Steve
mentioned above the African Archbishop who was excommunicated, which is
more serious than forbidding a man to perform priestly functions. The
Archbishop, although in Africa is part of the Western Church.
I'm no religious scholar or theologian, but it seems to me quite
possible that in the very early days of the Christian church, there may
have been married men who were priests; I just don't know. Browsing the
Web some two w s back, I found that within catholicism there are some
22/23 (?) 'sects/groups' in the Eastern Church. They are not associated
with Orthodoxy and the territory covers what we would call the old
Eastern Europe, the 'Persian/Arabic' block, down through to Egypt, and
they are all affiliated to Rome; i.e. they accept the Pope as the head
of the Catholic Church. There are both Orthodox and Catholic churches in
the Ukraine. In Egypt, it's even more complicated with the Coptics where
there is the Coptic (Arabic) church and a Catholic Coptic church, plus
there are others.
The Coptic Arabic church as its own Pope in Alexandria.
Do any of these others allow married priests - yes some do, covered in
the above Celibacy article, with differing rules per 'sect'. I was
browsing on Roumainia which has both Catholic and Orthodox. Then my
memory box clicked - having met somebody in Ontario, born in Roumania,
who used to program in COBOL, (has to be a good guy doesn't he ?), he
explained to me that his Catholic priests in Roumania were in fact
encouraged to marry so that when they got 'posted' to outlying areas,
they wouldn't feel lonely and get to suffer the temptations of the
flesh. However, he did add that if a priest was interested in a 'career
move', i.e., stepping up in the church hierarchy to become a bishop
etc., then they are ALWAYS selected from bachelors. Bear in mind that's
the Roumania he left about twenty years ago - so just might have changed
since. It appears the Catholic Roumanians are concentrated in
Transylvania. So I guess at one time Count Vlad was a catholic. Remember
him - he's the one with pointy-teeth ?
The Celibacy article confirms what happens in Roumania and gives
examples for other sects. Why the different rules ? Remember after the
Christian mid-East churches were established, the Muslims conquered
with the sword, leaving these Christian groups out on a limb. Some no
doubt sought an association with the Orthodox and some 23 wished to
recognize the pope as titular head. Rome accommodated them, but had to
make concessions to fit in with their historic local cultures.
Now let's try and answer your questions. (Quite a bit of it is
assumptions Steve, so if I've got any of it wrong, please jump in.
What's the score so far as you are concerned if you wanted now to become
a priest ? I think yours will be the answer to #4 ). :-
(1) If sin is defined by one's geography, what
about a
(2) a married African priest who moves to the U.S., Can the married
African priest remain a
priest here? or
(3) an American priest who moves to Africa? Can the American priest
marry there and remain a priest?
(1A) On the other hand, if sin is defined by one's ethnicity,
(4) what about a married African Catholic who just moved to the U.S. and
wants to become
a priest here? A similar thing appears to apply for different times.
Numbers 1 and 1A - you are definitely out to lunch. Does your branch of
Christendom teach that sin is geographical/ethnic ?
(2) Suggest it depends
(2a) Is he a member of the Western Church - then there's no way he can
be married, period.
(2b) (i) Is our African friend perhaps part of the Eastern Church, such
as the Catholic Coptic church in Egypt. Assuming they allow marriage,
(and I'm not going to check whether or not they do), and assuming there
is a branch of the Catholic Coptic in the States, then he could still
perform as a Coptic priest in a Coptic community.
(2b) (ii) If however our Coptic friend is married and wants to practice
in say the Catholic Diocese of Chicago, or elsewhere, no way. In
practical terms he isn't just like a doctor who sets up shop and starts
administering pills; our friend would be required to go to a Catholic
seminary for training before they would accept him One other pointer -
they wouldn't accept him if he stayed married. They 'might' if he
divorced his wife - but I'd guess that's one based on each case.
(3) Can we assume we are talking about a paddy called the Rev. Michael
O'Leary, part of the Chicago diocese and not one of the Eastern churches ?
When Michael O'Leary sends a photo of his African wedding to his
archbishop - "'Holy Muther of God, the poor lad is quite mad !" They
will sure defrock him, (forbidding him acting as a pastor) and quite
possibly he might be excommunicated because of the scandal it would cause.
(4) We are back to talking solely about the Western Church. I think
Steve could best answer this one. If you are widower, yes you can. I
don't know the church background to your question, but my best guess -
provided you become celibate and officially separate from your wife,
then I think you can become a priest. Remember the celibacy and
separation from wife would only be accepted after taking a solemn vow.
Having given a vow, it wouldn't surprise me if 'separation' was adequate
in church eyes, rather than divorce; after all the Catholic Church
doesn't believe in divorce but only annulment - and I don't think is is
one for annulment.
[color=darkred]
>
>Where do you hear these myths? Roman Catholics were NEVER forbidden
>to read the Bible. Bible reading and study are constantly promoted by
>the Church. As for the change in language from Latin to a native
>language, it was done to attract more people into becoming Roman
>Catholics. Many non Catholics who attented Mass, maybe for a wedding
>or a funeral or with a Catholic spouse, had complained about not
>understanding the Mass because of the Latin. Personally I find that a
>sign of laziness. I owned a Daily Missal that had the Latin on one
>side and the English on another. I could easily follow along. In
>addition, the Gospel and Epistles were never recited in Latin, at
>least in the USA. They were always recited in English.
>
>
>
In the UK until Vatican II, (62/63 ?) the whole of the mass was said
in Latin including the Epistle and Gospel readings for the day Now my
memory starts to fail me, so I'm not sure if the Epistle was repeated in
the vernacular, but most certainly the Gospel reading was repeated in
English. Just like Steve I still have my Roman Missal. Each page, one
column English and the other column Latin. As he commented, not being
able to understand what is being said is a lousy excuse
I used to go to church back then and can still vividly remember one of
the elderly priests in Yeovil, Somerset,
stomping up the metal stairs of the pulpit, letting us know his views on
Vatican II, "The pulpit was designed so that
you can see me and hear me !", he thundered. He wasn't having any of
this new fangled stuff where he stood at the altar rail and
preached to you.
>The Second Vatican Council changed the rules for the way the Mass was
>said. Prior to it, all masses everywhere where said in Latin. There
>were other changes in the Mass as well that were dictated by Vatican
>II. Many tradionlists within the Roman Catholic community, myself
>included, disliked these changes to this very day. Pope John Paul II,
>in his letter Ecclesia Dei, encouraged the frequent celebration of the
>traditional Latin liturgy for those Catholics who desire it. In
>addition, Pope Benedict XVI has also relaxed the rules and has allowed
>more instances of churches to say the old Tridentine Mass.
>
>More on this can be read at:
>
>http://www.catholic.org/internation...id=24636&page=2
>
>
>
>
>
Thank God Steve wrote that. I knew as a layman that he assists the
priest as a sub-deacon, but suspected he
was one of the 'liberal' mob. Well yours truly is also a
traditionalist. Little kid who attended church, listening to
the mumbo-jumbo in Latin - but even as tiny tots, from our teachers we
were well versed in what the mass
ritual was about. Then as I grew up, an altar boy. (Claim to fame - I
once burned the altar carpet when swinging the thurible
too enthusiastically, out popped the burning charcoal which was intended
to make the incense smoke). Can't write a sentence in
Latin, but I can still sing the Creed in Latin and Gregorian chant.
Some personal experiences of Vatican II and the Mass change :-
- RAF in Germany ('59-61) - Occasionally with Dutch Air Force friends,
(catholics from the southern Netherlands provinces),
we would mosey down to Gutersloh to hear mass on Sunday in a German
church. Our German neighbours were already at it, half of
the mass was already in German, so I couldn't follow it. My wife came
over for a holiday (she's an Anglican), and we went to a
Franciscan church in Dusseldorf - same problem 50/50 Latin/German
- our RAF padre took off for a vacation and as a substitute in steps a
German 'civilian' priest. No problem he recites the whole of the mass
in Latin - which I can follow from my missal.
- Indonesian friend in the R.Neth.A.F. invites me to Amsterdam for
Easter. Jump at the chance. He was the only one speaking English
comfortably and his sister had converted to catholicism. On Easter
Sunday she and I take off for the church. Communication was sign
language between us or a little of my half-assed Dutch. No problem at
the church we both followed the mass in Latin.
- Then I get back to UK, leave the RAF and settle in Yeovil above. Then
with Unigate move to Trowbridge, Wiltshire in '65. Now the fun starts.
We start getting bits and pieces of the mass in English. And when I
get to Canada, same thing I think - can't recall when the whole service
went English. But the bit that infuriates me is that I went through
FIVE different translations into English, in UK and Canada; not anything
that
demonstrably changed the order of the service..
These politically correct catholic liberals decide that the hymns that I
knew as a kid don't meet the needs of the modern world.
We used to have a good old Catholic Hymn book, one or two of the
Protestant hymns but mainly specifically written for catholics. Good
stomping tunes.
(Anybody remember on PBS 'Bless Me Father' with Arthur Lowe from 'Dad's
Army' as the wily Irishman, a parish priest in the UK. The opening theme
music was the very nice hymn, "Faith of Our Fathers, Holy Faith...."
Now what do we have at church, un-melodious TV hymns with inane lyrics -
you would come in zero on the UK/US/Canadian Idol show if you tried this on.
Not finished yet - now we introduce spotty-faced youths strumming away
on their guitars. I have christened it the Banjo Mass. All that's missing is
Mahlia Jackson floating across the altar in her flowing rent-a-tent
dress. And yet another. We have a lovely Sri Lankan friend, a gorgeous
looking lady for sixty with a very slim figure - wait for it - she joins
the church choir taking her bongo drums !!!!!!
I am seeing red. I fully realize that I shouldn't be, but when
traditions that you grew up with are being destroyed............?
Result, why go to church ?
It's pointless, I used to come out feeling mad - and that's not what
church is about. So I don't go any more. (Just like I'm pissed off with
what has happened to COBOL - I don't program anymore).
See Judson, it's not all black and white. While it may have appealed to
the modernizers to have the mass in the vernacular, it has been
extremely hurtful to some.
And I can assure you that Steve's missal and my missal will be identical
in the Latin text; it's also unlikely that there will be different words
used in English between the UK and USA texts, other than 'favour'
becomes 'favor' etc.
If you refer to that document that Steve quoted, you can see some of
their current dilemma. John XXIII at Vatican II allowed numerous
changes perhaps the most important, celebrate the mass in the
vernacular. After close to 50 years they have awakened to the fact that
perhaps there is some merit in retaining the Latin.
(I think I'm correct in saying that any masses/services televised from
the Vatican are always in Latin, accommodating the various language
groups with young people from Europe, Asia, Africa and N. and S. America
giving offertory prayers in their mother tongue).The church having
allowed vernacular and disallowed the Latin version, have created a
problem. For their young worshipers how do they explain having two
versions of the mass running in tandem.
There is one downtown church in Calgary that does have mass in Latin,
but a good 30 minutes drive from where I live, particularly as my wife
occasionally likes to go to her Anglican church, an alternative 30
minute drive. At my local church, mass in English, and only some five
minutes from home, (but it's a Banjo Mass).
>
>
>
I can clearly see you ARE , but not why you are .. As
Steve wrote, spell it out a bit with an
example, so that you don't leave us :-). Let's see your
examples but I think you might be confusing the
text of the Bible (New Testament specifically) , with church
clarification or even dogma, (ordinances that apply solely to catholics) -
it used to be for instance, that you had to abstain from eating meat on
Fridays in commemoration of Good Friday.
BTW - the above was written before I saw your loopy message about the
use of the word 'father'.
Jimmy
>What is wrong with Matthew 23:8? Where does Roman Catholic Church
>doctrine contradict it? In the New American Standard Bible it simply
>says, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you
>are all brothers." The King James version relates it as, "But be not
>ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are
>brethren."
>
>You need to give me specific examples of where Roman Catholic Church
>doctrine is contrary to the teachings in the Bible. As for the
>authority, the Pope is the final authority and I've already posted
>extensively about Papal Infallacy, where it is derived from and how it
>is exercised.
>
>Regards,
> ////
> (o o)
>-oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
>NORM: "All four chs and a couple of chins."
>--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Remove nospam to email me.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
|