Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Married Priest Movement on the Rise

One of the standard objections to the Papists has been that they violate Scriptures by forbidding their "priests" and bishops from marrying. Scripture not only permits the marriage of ordinary folks but of elders/bishops and deacons, the servants of the church. Scripture not only permits such marriage, but views it as the norm: not that every elder and deacon must be married, but that this is the ordinary course of events.

Now, in England this issue is coming to something of a bubble, because of the influx of married former Anglican clergy into the papist ranks. Anglicans, because of the historic (and largely dissipated) influence of the Reformation, do not forbid their clergy from marriage. This influx of married clergy creates tension, because the married clergy are not required to give up their wives when they join, while their newly acquired colleagues must remain unmarried.

One expects similar tension may also exist within other parts of Romanism, as some of the "Eastern rite" priests that have joined Rome's communion also included married clergymen. The Eastern Orthodox traditions, while generally forbidding bishops to marry, do permit their priests to marry (UPDATE: this sentence apparently confuses some who conclude that I'm suggesting that sometimes men who are already ordained in EO churches go from being single to being married - with that in mind, I should point out that I'm not aware of examples of either of those things happening).

The following linked article, from Sify news (which seems fond of pop-ups), describes the views of the apparent future head of Romanism in England and Wales, a certain "Bishop McMahon." (link)

McMahon claims, "There is no reason why priests shouldn't be allowed to marry. It has always been a matter of discipline rather than doctrine." We agree with him that there is no good reason. There are purported reasons, though, that were previously set out. "The Church" (as his comrades are fond of calling it) did not impose celibacy without some pretext. If someone wants the pretext, they need only turn to the polemical sites of any number of papists. The usual answer, framed against modern Evangelicals, is that celibacy frees one up to serve God. The more traditional answer is a perception that the sexual act itself is somehow unholy: i.e. that it is more holy to be single than to be married.

That is to say, while the practice certainly is disciplinary, it is one imagined (by its supporters) to be based on doctrinal arguments. It is interesting to see that within the ranks of papalism there is dissent even on these matters. One wonders what is next? He supports marriage for "priests:" will he support marriage for bishops too?

Finally, one wonders what "Joe Roman Catholic Lay Apologist" thinks about these things. Such a guy is typically himself married, but in favor of a celibate priesthood. Such a guy typically appreciates the fact that Rome's position on this matter of discipline cannot rationally be defended as simply an arbitrary decision with "no reason" (McMahon's words). On the other hand, against him is the Bishop of Nottingham - someone with far better credentials within the Roman hierarchy. What can this poor Joe do? Disagree with a bishop? or admit that there is no good reason for required celibacy?

We'll have to wait and see.

-TurretinFan

19 comments:

Ben Douglass said...

The more traditional answer is a perception that the sexual act itself is somehow unholy: i.e. that it is more holy to be single than to be married.

To say that thing A is less holy than thing B is not equivalent to saying that thing A is unholy. Two things can both be holy, while one is holier than another, like God and an angel.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Ben,

I appreciate your comments.

a) The analogy is distinguishable because the difference in holiness between God and angels relates to their being, not their actions. The issue here, however, is actions.

b) There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture.

c) Leaving aside the issue of differences between beings (addressed under {a} above), "thing A is less holy than thing B" is logically equivalent to "thing A is more more unholy than thing B."

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

TF,

the issue is as you say:::>

TF: "....The issue here, however, is actions."

The "action" is God's, not man's, to make us "holy".

The one "acted upon" by calling and election is the unholy one made "holy" by the "action" of God.

Again, for what it is worth, a look see at this "action of God" according to the Scriptures could be of some value hereon?

So, how does one "unholy" become "holy" before God? God has already declared that all have sinned and fallen short of His Glory!

Here is the "action of God", in my opinion, that makes one who is first and formost "unholy", [no matter whose family you were born into], "holy".

And without holiness, no one will see the Lord!

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

See the phrase: "God made alive together with him"?

There is a Greek word used twice in the New Testament and only twice. That Greek word is:::>

συζωοποιέω
suzōopoieō
sood-zo-op-oy-eh'-o
From G4862 and G2227; to reanimate conjointly with (figuratively): - quicken together with.


One's only "hope" of becoming holy before God is God "reanimating and conjoining you with, quickening you together with" Christ, the sinless, Holy One of God, the Savior sent.

There is only One Way to holiness, to becoming holy in the Presence of God and not until then, not until the "Action" of God is done to you and upon you, are you made "holy" presentable before Him and His Majestic Holiness.

The Holy Ghost is "sent" to do a sanctification work. He proclaims to us that Jesus saves us.

But, of course, Jesus Himself, both He and the Holy Ghost, are sent to us and each come to us with Our Heavenly Father's "Authority", to sanctify us and then make us holy by the Blood of His Cross. The Holy Ghost sanctifies us or draws us out of the world giving us ears to hear so that Christ can redeem us and feed us by washing us by His Own Blood and make us holy and a part of the Gospel of the kingdom, priests to Our God. Each one does it by the Authority They came in to do Their particular work to us for God. And that Authority is given to Them so that, as Paul wrote there at Col. 2:13 and at Eph. 2:5, God can, by His Own Holy Hand, reanimate and conjoin us to Christ, "making" us Holy before Him and before the world.

Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


The Holiness of God is by calling and election and is an individual action of God's upon the male and the female of Adam's race.

One is not "more" holy by being single and celibate or "more" holy by being made one "flesh" as in joining together with your spouse in "holy matrimony". One is "made" holy by an action of God alone upon the unholy being, whether male or female.

Again, it does seem that this article only points to and underscores the "times" we are in.

Consider Paul the Apostle's prediction:::>

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

According to the "insight" the Holy Ghost gave Paul, we will know the time is close to the end when we are forbidden to marry! Hmmmmmm?

Now, consider that insight to Paul in light of Christ's prophesy here:::>

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Mat 24:36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
Mat 24:37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.


Ok, Paul, ok Jesus, which is it? Are we to forbid marriage because of the days we are living in? No.

But there in Jesus' own Words it says that in the days of the end of time they will be marrying and given to marriage! Hmmmmmm?

The simple answer is this. It is not a matter of marrying and given to marriage. It is a matter of "being made holy".

I guess it would be easy then to observe it like this, "if you are made Holy by an Action of God, your unholy life is over and all you do from then on is, at least in God's eyes, "holiness" unto the Lord, either living a life of celibacy or a life married! It is the state of being you are found in at the time of the coming of the Lord, either unholy or holy that determines holiness unto the Lord" not whether you are married or single!

And of course, as has been said, Only God calls and elects and makes you "holy"! Cf. Eph. 2:5 and Col. 2:13.

Ben Douglass said...

b) There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture.

1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-9, 26-28, 32-40.

"So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better" (1 Cor 7:38).

c) Leaving aside the issue of differences between beings (addressed under {a} above), "thing A is less holy than thing B" is logically equivalent to "thing A is more unholy than thing B."

I deny. "Unholy" implies evil, which is a privation of good. "Less holy" implies mere absence of good. Not every absence of good is a privation, and hence not every absence of good is evil.

Ben Douglass said...

According to the "insight" the Holy Ghost gave Paul, we will know the time is close to the end when we are forbidden to marry! Hmmmmmm?

The Catholic Church doesn't force anyone to take a vow of celibacy. It is purely voluntary. Quoting 1 Tim 4:3 against Catholicism is one of the silliest arguments in the Protestant repetoire.

Alexander Greco said...

Turretinfan: a) The analogy is distinguishable because the difference in holiness between God and angels relates to their being, not their actions. The issue here, however, is actions.

Me: Good point.

Turretinfan: b) There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture.

Me: But what do you make of Paul's words when he describes those who live the celibate life are of the affairs of the Lord, etc? (I'm not dealing with the terminology of "holy" versus "unholy")

Turretinfan: c) Leaving aside the issue of differences between beings (addressed under {a} above), "thing A is less holy than thing B" is logically equivalent to "thing A is more more unholy than thing B."

Me: Would this really be the case though? The elect in heaven are not as holy as God, but would you say that God allows the unholy to exist in heaven?

Mike Burgess said...

TF said "There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture."

Untrue. See 1 Corinthians 7, particularly vv. 28-35. This is clear Scriptural warrant for the discipline, and it follows the spirit of St. Paul's inspired words: the one who is celibate seeks to be holy in body and spirit, he is concerned with the things of the Lord, and it is good to be married but "better" to remain celibate.

Mike Burgess said...

And, to follow up, vv 36-38 make it clear that the Bishop you quoted is correct: there is no doctrinal reason, and the Church has always allowed priests in some particular Churches to marry. She has chosen to impose a discipline for reasons of "good order," as St. Paul says, in the Latin Rite Churches of the One Church.

I presume I shouldn't need to quote St. Paul's words in full to such a biblically literate audience.

Anonymous said...

A few thoughts. I have posted on the subject just now over at my blog.

http://kakistokrat.wordpress.com


Why are you calling us Papists? Do you not realize that in certain parts of the world, the same people who use those words also hold up signs saying things like 'F--- the Pope!' Might I suggest some sensitivity. Whatever my thoughts about Reformed theology, I don't go around talking about the "Deformers." To do so would be stupid.

Now a few minor errors

-celibacy is not a doctrinal matter, therefore the Bishop's thoughts on the subject do not constitute dissent

-the reason for celibacy has little to do with either of the arguments that you suppose people use to defend it

-priests do not describe their status as single

-"The Eastern Orthodox traditions, while generally forbidding bishops to marry..."

:)


-and who cares what Catholic lay apologists think. the ones i've been familiar with are hardly worth listening too :)

kelly

Turretinfan said...

I've addressed the "papist" label elsewhere. It's not an epithet here, just an accurate description of theology.

Papist = person who holds to the doctrine of the papacy.

It is quite unlike "deformed" because "papist" is not intrinsically pejorative (though it is often used pejoratively). It's an accurate, unopinionated characterization.

It's the same as if you call me a presbyterian or call my baptist friends congregationalists.

"-celibacy is not a doctrinal matter, therefore the Bishop's thoughts on the subject do not constitute dissent"

If you read the post carefully, you'll see that I note that it is not a doctrinal matter but a disciplinary matter. Nevertheless, the bishop is dissenting from the current regime of forced priestly celibacy - even though this is a matter of discipline, not dogma.

"-the reason for celibacy has little to do with either of the arguments that you suppose people use to defend it"

Oh, so you disagree with the bishop, and think there is a reason? Very interesting.

And, no - I don't have to "suppose." I've seen people try to defend it over the years.

"-priests do not describe their status as single"

Whether they describe their status that way or not is totally irrelevant. This post is not intended to address the question of semantics.

"-"The Eastern Orthodox traditions, while generally forbidding bishops to marry..."

I'm not sure what confused you about that one. There have been a few (though from my recollection it is very very few) married Eastern Orthodox bishops.

"-and who cares what Catholic lay apologists think. the ones i've been familiar with are hardly worth listening too :)"

Very few ordained Papists (simply a description of church polity, as noted above) get out and do apologetics as a fraction of the whole. In fact, most of the noted English-speaking apoligists from that crowd are laymen.

But it is an interesting question from an internal perspective: they lack any spiritual authority within "the Church," so why should we invest authority in them?

-TurretinFan

kellyjwilson said...

I think in light of it's connotation, on would be better of employing the term the people in question attach to themselves. For example I do not call myself a Papist, I call myself a Roman Catholic. Anyways, as I noted it's small thing.

The Bishop would be dissenting if he went out and starting ordaining married men. Making known his theoretical preference on a disciplinary matter does not constitute as dissent.

Yes, I would naturally disagree with the Bishop if he suggested that celibacy was enforced in light of those views that you attribute to celibacy's defenders. I can't imagine him giving much credibility to them, but I don't know him, so perhaps he does. If he did, I would disagree. Mandatory celibacy arose in the context of a priesthood that forgot that it's role was spiritual and not temporal in nature.

That most Catholic apologists are laymen, hardly enhances my desire to listen to them. As I said, from my experience a good deal of them come of as ignorant however well intentioned, not unlike the way Catholicism has been represented here.

Regarding "single" priests, this has nothing to do with semantics. IT has to do with understanding how the priest would see himself, and goes back to my suggest that a knowledge of the framework a Catholic operates in, would help you.

Finally, regarding the Orthodox, there are two sorts of priests: One's that have taken vows of celibacy, and ones that have entered the ministry married. Consequently Bishops do not get married. It is quite unheard of for a priest who is married to become a bishop, but a Bishop never would get married. It's not a matter of "generally forbidden." Hence the smile. Goes back to the framework.

Turretinfan said...

KW wrote: "I think in light of it's connotation, on would be better of employing the term the people in question attach to themselves. For example I do not call myself a Papist, I call myself a Roman Catholic. Anyways, as I noted it's small thing."

I'm glad it is a small thing.

KW wrote: "The Bishop would be dissenting if he went out and starting ordaining married men. Making known his theoretical preference on a disciplinary matter does not constitute as dissent."

Sure it does. Not only does he dissent, he voices his dissent. Going a step further and actually violating the law of his church would go beyond mere dissent into rebellion.

KW wrote: "Yes, I would naturally disagree with the Bishop if he suggested that celibacy was enforced in light of those views that you attribute to celibacy's defenders."

a) Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. That's not what I said.

b) He says "no reason" yet you say there is a reason. In fact, you do disagree with him. You dissent from his opinion.

KW wrote: "I can't imagine him giving much credibility to them, but I don't know him, so perhaps he does. If he did, I would disagree."

see above

KW wrote: "Mandatory celibacy arose in the context of a priesthood that forgot that it's role was spiritual and not temporal in nature."

To the extent that you are acknowledging that this prohibition on marriage did not arise in the time of the apostles, I certainly agree.

KW wrote: "That most Catholic apologists are laymen, hardly enhances my desire to listen to them. As I said, from my experience a good deal of them come of as ignorant however well intentioned, not unlike the way Catholicism has been represented here."

I'm not one to suggest that you need to listen to them. On the other hand, in my position as a Reformed apologist, I do need to interact with their arguments as a practical matter.

KW wrote: "Regarding "single" priests, this has nothing to do with semantics. IT has to do with understanding how the priest would see himself, and goes back to my suggest that a knowledge of the framework a Catholic operates in, would help you."

Truth is an objective reality. The objective reality is that Roman priests are not married (either by the mechanisms of the state or by what is considered the "sacrament of marriage"). Whether priests recognize this is really moot with respect to the point under discussion, though it may be very important to the priests themselves in their daily life.

KW wrote: "Finally, regarding the Orthodox, there are two sorts of priests: One's that have taken vows of celibacy, and ones that have entered the ministry married. Consequently Bishops do not get married. It is quite unheard of for a priest who is married to become a bishop, but a Bishop never would get married. It's not a matter of "generally forbidden." Hence the smile. Goes back to the framework."

It is common for an EO priest to be married, but it is rare for an EO Bishop to be married. I cannot think of any EO Bishop that took a wife while already enthroned. I believe that a patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East did once (i.e. got married while enthroned).

Probably the ACE should be not be counted as EO, though, for historical reasons.

-TurretinFan

Kelly said...

I think you misunderstand the nature of dissent. On a subject that Catholics are free to disagree about, one does not dissent by voicing their own views on the subject. Priestly celibacy is not a matter of faith/morals. (One dissents by practicing [ordaining married men] what the Church has urged caution regarding).

I chuckled about the EO claim you made and continue to make, because EO bishops will never take on wives. :) Not even a priest will take a wife, if he has already been ordained. It must happen before...

Oh and I don't mind if you want to pay attention to lay apologists, and I don't even suppose that they don't carry some sway among certain parts of the laity. However your analysis will remain lightweight so long as you are engaging with such a quality. :)

Anyways, you are interesting to read, but from a Catholic perspective your ignorance of Catholicism hampers any attempt to have a discussion about it, even though I have offered over three posts at my blog to you for discussion.

In the Ignation exercises, we read that one should not attribute a malicious intent to those one encounters, especially when something like ignorance is the more likely cause. Consequently my invitation stands, that should you wish to ever pass your thoughts on Catholicism by me privately, before opening yourself to ridicule publicly, I would be happy to show you how and where certain comments should be qualified. To repeat, feel free to disagree, but understand what it is you are disagreeing with.

Your post 'Married Priest Movement on the Rise' shows many areas that require the background of knowledge, as to the other two posts that I have engaged with over at my blog.

Kelly

oh and yes, i would disagree with the Bishop if he really believes there is no reason for celibacy, however i suspect he means the reasons for it are outweighed by the reasons against it, to which i have no problem with

Turretinfan said...

KW wrote: "I think you misunderstand the nature of dissent. On a subject that Catholics are free to disagree about, one does not dissent by voicing their own views on the subject. Priestly celibacy is not a matter of faith/morals. (One dissents by practicing [ordaining married men] what the Church has urged caution regarding)."

I'm not sure why you feel compelled to use "dissent" in some unusual way. I'm just using plain English here. Try to read my comment that way, and perhaps you'll see that I'm not trying to trigger some particular canonical provision.

KW wrote: "I chuckled about the EO claim you made and continue to make, because EO bishops will never take on wives. :) Not even a priest will take a wife, if he has already been ordained. It must happen before..."

I'm not sure whether you are just misunderstanding what I have written. Perhaps there is some ambiguity in the way I phrased my remark that leads to your chuckling. I'm inclined to go back at some point to amend "marry" to "be married" to clear up any confusion.

KW wrote: "Oh and I don't mind if you want to pay attention to lay apologists, and I don't even suppose that they don't carry some sway among certain parts of the laity. However your analysis will remain lightweight so long as you are engaging with such a quality. :)"

I'm happy to take on both the most popular and the best (in the event the two don't coincide) apologetics that your church has to offer.

KW wrote: "Anyways, you are interesting to read, but from a Catholic perspective your ignorance of Catholicism hampers any attempt to have a discussion about it, even though I have offered over three posts at my blog to you for discussion."

You seem to continue to confuse disagreement with your religion for ignorance of your religion. The two are not the same.

KW wrote: "In the Ignation exercises, we read that one should not attribute a malicious intent to those one encounters, especially when something like ignorance is the more likely cause. Consequently my invitation stands, that should you wish to ever pass your thoughts on Catholicism by me privately, before opening yourself to ridicule publicly, I would be happy to show you how and where certain comments should be qualified. To repeat, feel free to disagree, but understand what it is you are disagreeing with."

I am willing to be ridiculed for my opposition to the doctrines of Rome. Worse things were done to my spiritual forebearers.

KW wrote: "Your post 'Married Priest Movement on the Rise' shows many areas that require the background of knowledge, as to the other two posts that I have engaged with over at my blog."

I have seen the posts you have provided, and I hope to engage them at greater length in due course. I encourage you to consider the fact that someone currently outside your communion can, in fact, know something about the history, doctrines, and practices of your church.

KW wrote: "oh and yes, i would disagree with the Bishop if he really believes there is no reason for celibacy, however i suspect he means the reasons for it are outweighed by the reasons against it, to which i have no problem with"

When you say that you have "no problem with" - do you mean you agree that the reasons for it are outweighed by the reasons against it? Or do you mean that you have no problem with him holding the opinion he holds?

-TurretinFan

Kelly said...

Well in the Catholic Church when we speak of dissent, and attach such to theologians or scholars, we have a very definate meaning we attach to the word, and it is one we wouldn't attach to this Bishop, because as stated that matter he addresses is not one of faith and morals. It may be plain English to you, but the words you choose to employ in the context you attach them to, have a meaning that you must be unaware of.

Your clarification regarding the EO's is necessary, so if you feel that you should amend it do so.

No, I don't confuse disagreement with ignorance. In fact I have repeatedly said 'disagree' but do so by evidencing your knowledge of (in your words)"history, doctrines and practices" of the Church. As I have shown for example in the three posts I have offered at my blog on your subjects, this knowledge is not being evidenced.
But your right, your forefathers have endured worse than mockery, and while I am not responsible for this, naturally any participation by members of my Church in this regard is deeply scandalous.

As to the Bishop you ask an interesting question. Yes, I believe that the original conditions that motivated the Church to promte celibacy are no longer relevant. Does that mean that there are no reasons for men to be celibate? I think there are good reasons. But are such reasons outweighed by even better reasons to extend the ranks to those married? I suspect they are.

Naturally, even if I were to disagree with the Bishop, I would defend his right to hold and express such an opinion.

I think I have more or less clarified in your post what I wanted to clarify. You might choose to hold on to your opinion of what it means to dissent, but I have mentioned how your meaning and the one the Church uses to attach it are very different. So essentially unless there are points that you would like me to clarify I think I have said what I wanted to say.

Anonymous said...

Hello Francis,

I'm a Papist who believes that whilst you don't embrace Roman Catholicism you are entitled to use the term "papist" or "reformed" to dichotomise without being insulting. Indeed the term "reformed" should be more insulting to a papist then the term "papist".

There are many types of "reformed" Christians. The commonality appears to be that they aren't papist. Thus it embodies the key means of differentiating the groups.

When a papist feels uncomfortable with the meaningful distinction I can't help wondering if they are secretly drawn to being reformed but don't want to admit it to themselves thus feeling uncomfortable having the obvious presented before them.

Can I ask what you consider to be the historical and theological underpinnings of celibacy for papist priests?

You asserted that the traditional answer is a perception that the sexual act itself is somehow unholy i.e it is more holy to be single than to be married. How traditional do you consider it and from where do you consider it derived?

John

Turretinfan said...

Dear John,

Given the prevalence of married priests in Eastern Orthodoxy, it would make sense to link the celibate priesthood to the papacy of Gregory VII. In his day, one might argue that the concerns were largely political.

Furthermore, according to his supporters, he was a reformer trying to clean up a church that had experienced a degree of corruption.

One of the charges of corruption was connected with nepotism. Married priests (and those with concubines) tended to try to arrange it so that church property went to their sons.

Not only was this an outward scandal, there was risk of church property in essence (or in effect) passing out of the church.

Ultimately, Gregory VII's actions may be viewed as having the greatest influence in this regard.

Nevertheless, promotion of celibacy in the priesthood goes much further back in time than Gregory VII, even if we may blame him for institutionalizing it firmly.

And, of course, though it was institutionalized firmly then, by the time of Luther the Borgias (and others) had made something of a mockery on the prohibitions - which led (in part) to the Reformation and to Trent's decrees, including:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

KW wrote: "Well in the Catholic Church when we speak of dissent, and attach such to theologians or scholars, we have a very definate meaning we attach to the word, and it is one we wouldn't attach to this Bishop, because as stated that matter he addresses is not one of faith and morals. It may be plain English to you, but the words you choose to employ in the context you attach them to, have a meaning that you must be unaware of."

I'm surprised this isn't clear, but when I write I do so as one not part of the Roman communion. I am an "outsider" and a critical one at that. Hopefully a person reading my blog would not place it in some other context than that.

KW wrote: "Your clarification regarding the EO's is necessary, so if you feel that you should amend it do so."

As you wish.

KW wrote: "No, I don't confuse disagreement with ignorance."

Well - it looks like it.

KW wrote: "In fact I have repeatedly said 'disagree' but do so by evidencing your knowledge of (in your words)"history, doctrines and practices" of the Church."

Actually, you attempt to assert ignorance by disagreeing with certain statements I've provided.

KW wrote: "As I have shown for example in the three posts I have offered at my blog on your subjects, this knowledge is not being evidenced."

There is very important difference between not evidencing knowledge and evidencing ignorance.

KW wrote: "But your right, your forefathers have endured worse than mockery, and while I am not responsible for this, naturally any participation by members of my Church in this regard is deeply scandalous."

Which, if you had said at the time, would have got you in a ton of trouble. As a result, one wonders whether you can properly consider yourself part of the same church as that which persecuted the Reformers - the change in ecumenical views being so vastly different.

KW wrote: "As to the Bishop you ask an interesting question. Yes, I believe that the original conditions that motivated the Church to promte celibacy are no longer relevant. Does that mean that there are no reasons for men to be celibate? I think there are good reasons. But are such reasons outweighed by even better reasons to extend the ranks to those married? I suspect they are."

ok

KW wrote: "Naturally, even if I were to disagree with the Bishop, I would defend his right to hold and express such an opinion."

ok

KW wrote: "I think I have more or less clarified in your post what I wanted to clarify. You might choose to hold on to your opinion of what it means to dissent, but I have mentioned how your meaning and the one the Church uses to attach it are very different. So essentially unless there are points that you would like me to clarify I think I have said what I wanted to say."

ok

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Ben, Mike, and Alexander,

Thank you for your comments. I have provided a response to your thought-provoking comments in a new post (link).

-TurretinFan