Qualifications for Pastor

The Catholic Church only requires that priests of the Latin Rite remain celibate. This is, of course, contrary to what DHK insists. The Eastern Rites may marry. Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. It is also by choice, no one has to be ordained a priest.

 

I tend to think it's not about being extra-biblical but interpretations of biblical text. Where I serve, women are barred from preaching and pastoring, but previously, I've been places that support it. Both believe the Bible. Both attempt to interpret it faithfully. But they wind up in different places.

 

Lori, by "The Eastern Rites" are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church? If not who does this include? Can you please explain the difference between "The Latin Rite" and the "Eastern Rite?" Thanks!

 

Here is the main difference (as I see it) between Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Eastern Rite Catholic. Eastern Orthodox Catholics are not in union with or under the authority of the pope. Eastern Rite Catholics are in union with Rome.

A Ukrainian Orthodox Church and a Ukrainian Rite Catholic Church are practically identical in liturgy. In both Churches their priests may be married but they must marry by the time they are ordained to the diaconate.

The majority of the Catholic Church is made up of Latin Rite (Western) Churches but there are a significant number of Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.

 

That is a wonderful way to deny it is a dogma! It is not a dogma but a "choice" with no alternative but to submit to Rome's law if you wish to be a preist.

 

You always win don't you Lori?
When one speaks of how divisive the Catholic Church is, you deny it. You speak of the divisions in Protestantism, but here you openly admit the various divisions in the Catholic Church. There are probably as many divisions in the Catholic Church as there are in all of Protestantism, if the truth be told, but don't tell your RCC apologists that.

However when one, for discussion sake, wants to speak of the requirement that the RCC has of the celibacy of the priesthood, then you bring in all your little divisions and tell us that it is not a requirement because one rite allows it and another does not. This is just a hypocritical scapegoat.

Mainstream Roman Catholicism does not allow married priests. Celibacy of the priesthood is a requirement. We all know this. Why provide the loopholes. No one is referring to the Latin rites and the Russsian Orthodox, and the Ukrainian rite, etc. Is it any wonder it so difficult to hold a reasonable debate with you (most RC's that come here).

 

It is only YOU who are saying they are divided. Do you know the difference between various rites of the Catholic Church and actual schisms. These Churches are liturgically different but sign on to the catechism. They are not a schism from Rome. You are just plain wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

CELIBACY IS ONLY REQUIRED IN THE LATIN RITE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

" . . .the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with each other and with the Latin or Western Church. However, they vary in theological emphasis, forms of liturgical worship and popular piety, canonical discipline and terminology. They all recognize the central role of the Bishop of Rome within the College of Bishops and his infallibility when speaking ex cathedra'.

 

Lori, where is the scriptural basis for the Latin rite to reject priesthood to married men or reject receiving married women as nuns? Why isn't 1 Timothy 4:3 applicable to the Latin rite since Paul is directly addressing a bishop and has formerly laid down qualifications for a bishop to be "the man of one wife" in I Tim. 3:1????

How can you reconcile the Latin rite with the contrast between 1 Tim. 3:1 which addresses directly the qualifications for Bishops but allows for marriage whereas 1 Tim. 4:3 addresses a characteristic of those who "depart from the faith" as rejecting marriage.

 

I doubt if it was a "Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church" that I grew up in. But it was a requirement for every priest that I have ever met to be celibate: whether in Canada: In every province from Quebec to British Columbia, or in Europe or in Asia. I have never yet met a priest who did not have to meet the requirement of celibacy. So, really, I don't know what you are talking about. Your handful of some Catholics compared to whom I have met, where I have been, doesn't match up with the facts. Sorry, I don't believe you.

 

Celibacy is a discipline in one part of the Catholic Church and not in another. It is a matter of choice.

There are married nuns. Are you surprised? There are orders that have married couples who live in community. These are CHOICES. No one is requiring anyone to do something they don't want to do.

BTW, celibacy is certainly not a dogma of the Church. Dogma is set in stone and doesn't change. The celibacy requirement in the Latin Rite can be changed.

 

Agreed. It is a discipline, one of those semantic words that the Catholic church has decided to re-define as "requirement."
No priest desiring to enter the priesthood and not willing to be celibate or take up the "discipline" of celibacy would ever be accepted. It is sheer hypocrisy. As in most things, just re-define the word to make it acceptable.

 

So now you start calling me a liar and won't even check it out for yourself. Figures. BTW, you grew up in a Latin Rite Church. You mentioned that you still know much of the latin mass.

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991002byzantine4.asp

 

By the way, DHK, the Vatican we find that the Byzantine Catholic Church in the U.S. only recently began relaxing the celibacy requirement but in other parts of the world they have always allowed married priests.

 

The so-called "unity" you describe by qualfications is no more unity than those who subscribe to the unity in the Universal INVISIBLE chruch theory.

The real truth is that Catholcism is ALL-INCLUSIVE of every contrasting teaching under the sun. You have the Augustine order that embraces the teaching of Augustine and you have orders that do not embrace the teaching of Augustine. The RCC is more than willing to take back the Church of England into its bosom without change of priesthood or rituals if they merely accept Papa as their head. The RCC is in fellowship with the Orthodox Catholic.

There is not another religion upon the face of earth more doctrinally diverse under the qualifications of "rite" than Rome as she is the den of iniquity.

 

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church stands by the Catechism and anyone who wants to call themselves Catholic must sign on to it. Anglicans will only be accepted into communion with the Catholic Church if they are willing to sign on to the Catechism. The Catholic Church will not compromise it's beliefs for anyone. Rites (or liturgical expression) are not dogma. Anglicans can keep their liturgy. What is wrong with that? It is already a catholic liturgy, why change it? You confuse liturgy with doctrine and celibacy you describe as dogma.

As to you comment on the Catholic Church being 'in fellowship' with the Orthodox Church, what in the world would be wrong with that? Hopefully, some day soon we will be in full-communion with one another. I already pray with Orthodox Christians. I even pray with some of you Baptists!

 

Lori, if I understood you correctly, did not you claim you were a "Baptist" before you became a Catholic? Something like Newt Gingrich?

Now, were you a born again saved Baptist or do you look back upon that as being deceived and lost?

If you look back at your Baptist days as a real born again believer then what did joining the Catholic church change in regard to your salvation status?

If it changed nothing then are you saying that the gospel of the Baptist is the same gospel of the Catholic equally saving?