Rorate Caeli

Poor Germany


After the arid years in which the German Episcopal Conference was headed by one of the worst prelates in contemporary Catholicism, Cardinal Lehmann, the new President of the German Episcopal Conference, Robert Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg, shows that he is ready to battle his fellow countryman, the Bishop of Rome - who only last year solemnly confirmed that, in "continuity with the great ecclesial tradition", priestly celibacy "remains obligatory in the Latin tradition" (Sacramentum Caritatis, 24).

The German Church remains in the hands of a rebellious prelate, as Zollitsch confirms in an interview to the German weekly Der Spiegel (translation by Chris Gillibrand, of Catholic Church Conservation):


Head of German Catholics considers celibacy "not necessary"

For Catholics, it would be a revolution: Robert Zollitsch, the new chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, is considering an end to the celibacy. For priests to live without marrying, was "not theologically necessary," he says in SPIEGEL - and also let his understanding for the Greens and the SPD [Socialists] be known.

HAMBURG – Into his first few days in office - and he even dares to take on a mammoth project: the Archbishop of Freiburg and newly elected chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Robert Zollitsch said that he was against "a prohibition on thinking" about the subject of celibacy. In an interview with Spiegel, the 69-year-old said the link between the priesthood and celibacy was "not theologically necessary."

For the Catholic Church, this statement a radical departure from past practice. Zollitsch is also aware of this: A farewell to celibacy "would be a revolution, in which a part of the church would not take part," he says. A Council that would be needed, because the interior life of the entire church would be affected.

At the same time, Zollitsch advocates an opening of his church towards new social milieus. He went on to distance himself from statements of other bishops about kindergarten care. "Terms like 'Baby Bearing Machine' or 'stove bonus ' do not belong to my vocabulary and break down any discussion about the approach. We need nurseries because many parents simply are in need."

He spoke critically about the development of the CDU [the Conservative party, Christian Democratic Union], although that party shares "many Christian values in our sense." But, then Zollitsch added, "The CDU has become closer to more neoliberal theories - and thereby there is a danger in the social market economy that social issues are not kept firmly enough in mind." The proximity between the Catholic Church and the CDU was "very diminished". Furthermore, other parties such as the Socialists and the Greens appreciated "things that are important to us, more than ever before".

The Archbishop of Freiburg also canvassed for a better relationship with the Protestant Church. The Roman statement about what to be a church means triggered resentment among the Protestants. The Protestant Church "is a church. I cannot deny it."

_______________
Recess for a few days; relevant news may be posted at any moment.

57 comments:

Braadwijk said...

After musing over Western Civilization it dawned on me that most of the horrible things that have happened to us are usually traced back to rotten clergy either refusing to care for the flock or actively harming them. Don't these bishops realize they are responsible for this continent's slide into secularism, and next into the Dar Al-Islam? It pains me to say it, but these clergy just can't die quickly enough.

Walter said...

How do men like this bcome Bishops?

Anonymous said...

Men like this become bishops due to a weak Papacy. John Paul was weak,and we shall see about Benedict. If a few were excommunicated, it would set a lovely example. Wholescale excommunications would be best, but just a few would get the message across.

Syriacus said...

To read some 'mainstream' comments in the ordinary German secular media, see:

http://meinungen.gmx.net/forum-gmx/post/337997

Anonymous said...

Good point, Braadwijk. Of course, historically, most of the real problems have come from the interference of kings and dictators in the appointment of bishops. They appointed men for simony, political, or financial gain and their countries suffered for it.

What then, pray tell, is the excuse or gain now that the church does it wholesale? Why, the smoke of Satan, of course. It goes back even before VC II, as Pope St Pius X saw them gaining power in the church and couldn't excommunicate them fast enough, and died heartbroken because he saw what was coming. And if he couldn't do it, this Pope can't either. Rough times ahead, I'd say, until the consecration is properly done.
Joe B

servusmariaen said...

It makes one long for men like Bishop Rudolf Graber of Regensburg. He was a gift to the German Church and the universal Church.

Anonymous said...

This is rather amusing

"The Archbishop of Freiburg also canvassed for a better relationship with the Protestant Church. The Roman statement about what to be a church means triggered resentment among the Protestants. The Protestant Church "is a church. I cannot deny it."

Could someone break the news to this fool that he IS PROTESTANT ALREADY. YOU CAN'T GET A BETTER RELATIONSHIP THAN THAT.

Oh for the axe to fall on these wolves. How long must we suffer.

Benfan

prof. basto said...

THAT IS WHY THE POPE SHOULD PUBLISH AN APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION DIRECTING THAT, FROM NOW ON, HE, AS SUPREME PASTOR, WILL APPOINT THE LEADERSHIP OF ALL NATIONAL BISHOPS' CONFERENCES, NOT JUST ITALY.

Anonymous said...

more liberal garbage. if this is the Pope's choice, (the best available) then God help Germany.

Caritas said...

Syriacus,

These "mainstream" comments are disturbing, however "deja vu". The media coverage of this event will be filled with similar propaganda.

Usually, they will try to find the story of a priest, in some remote location, who was forced to leave because of an affair. Next, they will turn the man into some kind of martyr/victim of the Church. The goal is for everybody to feel sorry for the poor guy. (not because he is a sinner but because the Mother Church has forced him to leave). The priest will then claim that he has thousands of letters of support, that he knows dozens of guys who would like to become priest. The press will justify his sin by stating that he has the solution to the shortage of priests etc.

As Christians we pray for his repentance. As Roman Catholics we know its a snear and a lie.

The Roman Catholic Church needs Holy Priests.

Let us pray for the Holy Father and many Holy Priests.

Providence never fails!

Caritas

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sacerdos said...

Dear Anti-Platonic Anonymous:

Priests are celibate, not because marital sex is in any way impure, but simply because...Christ Our Lord was celibate. Our celibacy is a profound identification with the Lord in whose Person we act at the altar. It really is as simple as that.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Dear blog administrator,

How do you live with your intellectual dishonesty/bankruptcy?

A traditionalist against compulsory celibacy.

New Catholic said...

Great: an anti-tradition Traditionalist...

What next?

Anonymous said...

I am not suprised. I hope this guy won't become a cardinal. He is even worse than Lehmann.

Anonymous said...

prof. basto,

I think rather that the Pope ought to issue an apostolic constitution that declares the suppression of all bishops' conferences. They've done more harm than good.

That said, I am sure that the Pope is aware of the situation in Germany and that it is close to his heart. He cannot be happy with such open rebellion. He must have something on his mind.

Jordan Potter said...

I think rather that the Pope ought to issue an apostolic constitution that declares the suppression of all bishops' conferences. They've done more harm than good.

I agree. They're an innovation in church governance without any real authority, and they have gone a long way to the bureacratisation of national ecclesiastical hierarchies. In church law it is councils, not episcopal conferences, that have the real binding authority -- but as long as there is a permanently standing body of bureacrats, we can expect to never again see any plenary councils. A nations' bishops gathering in council ought to be a notable and extraordinary thing, but bishops' conferences are make-work bodies, meeting every year, constantly trying to find a reason to demonstrate their relevance and importance.

Jordan Potter said...

As for the claim that there is no theological or doctrinal basis for priestly celibacy, how then are we to explain the fact that priestly celibacy exists and is honored in both the West and the East?

Scipio said...

Before outright condemning Archbishop Zollitsch, I invite you to read the full interview first and not relying on the anti-church magazine Spiegel.

There is some more nuanced discussion, e.g. on my blog intelligam.blogspot.com or on www.commentarium.de.

Gillibrand said...

He is worse than Lehmann because Lehmann was an ambitious man and would never have been so blatant.

His successor will never have the chance of higher office.

A German newspaper commented about Archbishop Marx of Munich that he would have been a change as he did not campaign for the job unlike Lehmann 21 years ago.

Lehmann's episcopal motto is stand firmly in the faith, Zollitsch's is in the community of the faith.

Roger said...

i actually spent 6 months in his diocese last year, and i actually went to a public speach of his in constance - by chance. he came dressed pretty much in a suit and was not particularly strong. although the town was mostly catholic, the protestant speaker got the most applause. The bishop is guilty of turning his flock into wimps.

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter said:

As for the claim that there is no theological or doctrinal basis for priestly celibacy...

The correct position is that there is no theological basis for the COMPULSION of celibacy.

A traditionalist against compulsory celibacy.

P.S. I am far from the only traditionalist in favour of (non-compulsory) clerical marriage, and in that number I include some priests. I will not, of course, disclose their identities, so as to not expose them to unjust treatment from their superiors.

Anonymous said...

In The Book of Genesis, 6:1-4, we see a
warning to be circumspect in our
marriages; and not to suffer ourselves
to be determined in our choice by our
carnal passion, to the prejudice of
virtue or religion.

This adds significant weight to the
argument, in my opinion, that priests
should be unmarried men. Allowances
for married lads should be made from
time to time, perhaps; but the over-
whelming norm should be for single
males.

Saint Peter was himself married; but
few, if any, of the other Apostles
were married also. So, the Catholic
Church's current policy of rare
exception seems to be doing O.K.;
especially when it comes to converts.
Sometimes converts are Christian
ministers in other Christian sects.



Erick

Anonymous said...

Most of the apostles were married: see 1 Cor IX:5 (in the original Greek or the genuine Vulgate of St Jerome, NOT the Clementine version which falsified this crucial verse to hide the fact that the clergy in general have the right to be married).

Anonymous said...

Correction: That should be I Cor 9:5.

Jordan Potter said...

An anonymous person claiming to be a traditionalist said: The correct position is that there is no theological basis for the COMPULSION of celibacy.

I'm not aware of any compulsion of celibacy in the Catholic Church, and I would have thought a traditionalist would have recognised that absence of compulsion. The Church does, however, have a right to confer Holy Orders only on those who have discerned a vocation to celibacy and to laicise those who violate their promise never to marry or to attempt marriage.

P.S. I am far from the only traditionalist in favour of (non-compulsory) clerical marriage

Well, I'm glad to hear that you don't advocate dragging priests down the aisle, putting guns to their heads and pretending to marry them against their will.

Erick said: Saint Peter was himself married; but few, if any, of the other Apostles were married also.

And it has been observed that even in the case of St. Peter, for all we know his wife died before St. Peter received the sacrament of Holy Orders.

An anonymous person claimed: Most of the apostles were married: see 1 Cor IX:5

I Cor. 9:5 does not say most of the apostles were married, it merely teaches that apostles who are married have a right to receive support from the Church for themselves and their wives. The verse could be interpreted to mean that some or all of St. Paul, St. Barnabas, the Lord's Brothers, and St. Peter were at that time married, or it could mean that some or all of them had been married in the past but were now unmarried and possibly even vowed to celibacy, or it could mean only that if they were married then they and their wives have a right to be supported by the Church. As it stands, the verse cannot be taken as a clear affirmation that any of them were at that time married, or that they had a right to be married in the future.

(in the original Greek or the genuine Vulgate of St Jerome, NOT the Clementine version which falsified this crucial verse to hide the fact that the clergy in general have the right to be married).

As I have shown, the verse isn't as crucial or as clear as you think. Before my conversion to Catholicism, I and my fellow sect members latched onto I Cor. 9:5 as evidence that clergy as a rule ought to be married and that there was something unnatural and perhaps even perverted about ordained ministers being unmarried. But that only goes to show that any scriptural text can be twisted to justify all kinds of nutty beliefs.

You say the clergy in general have a right to be married. But most clergy have made solemn promises to God to remain unmarried, so that means the clergy in general have neither the right nor the ability to marry. The Church has a right to receive those promises, to ordain only those who are called to make those promises, and to discipline those who break their promises. Whatsoever St. Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven.

Anonymous (another anonymous?) said: Correction: That should be I Cor 9:5.

"Correction"? I Cor IX:5, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 9.5, I Cor 9:V, etc. -- it hardly matters which style one might prefer.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch,is a true Traditionist, going back to the biblical traditions were Apostles including St.Peter, our first Roman Pontiff was married rather than 'halting' in a medieval cystalisation of catholicism. Of course the brave Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo has been telling us this for years now.
truly,
Jamie

Anonymous said...

Someone has wondered why so many 'anonymous' postings. Well let me tell you. At least about myself. I am a priest and fear being pursued or losing my parish !

Lucius said...

Archbishop Gerhard Muller,the abp of Regensburg has responded to this today.

He said: "Instead of reprinting the debate on celibacy, about which everything once and for all has already been said,we become ourselves emboldened to try to awaken priestly vocations and deeper insights into the spiritual dimensions of the life of celibacy which-in the language of the Council-is in harmony with the priesthood in many ways.(Presbyterorum ordinis, Art. 16)"

Anonymous said...

According to Lucius who quotes Archbishop Gerhard Muller "everything once and for all has already been said about the subject." Obviously, this is not really the case as he is repeating what he already said about it ! The Archbishop of Freiburg is a true traditionalist reverting back to the earliest of traditions - the Apostolic ones ! , no one can deny that the Apostles were married. Our first Pope, St. Peter was married, and despite all arguments to the contrary there was a "Mrs Peter".

Anonymous said...

New Catholic,

Given the opening quote from our Holy Father that "priestly celibacy remains obligatory in the Latin tradition" and that this is "in continuity with the great ecclesial tradition," it seems appropriate to either end comments on this post, or censor those using ridiculous and unanswerable comments such as, "despite all arguments to the contrary, there was a "Mrs. Peter.""

In Christ Our King

Jordan Potter said...

No one can deny that the Apostles were married, but no one can affirm that they were married or that they were non-celibates after their ordinations. Nor would their being married have any bearing on whether or not priests should be married today, or whether or not the Church has the right to choose to ordain only those men with a calling to celibacy.

And why am I not surprised that the miserable Emanuel Milingo's name has shown up here? It seems Rorate Coeli is being spammed by Moonies and Milingoists. "Brave" Emanuel Milingo? Since he chose to join the Moonies, it seems he's not only not a brave traditional Catholic, but is apparently an apostate from the Christian religion, for faith in the false messiah Moon is incompatible with faith in the Messiah Jesus.

I think New Catholic would do well to delete any further comments from alleged traditionalists who advocate for married priests. We'll probably only be treated to more Moonie/Milingoist propagandising.

Lucius said...

No one is denying that St. Peter was married etc. but the celibacy tradition is very ancient if not apostolic. (See Christian Cocchini S.J. "Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.")

However, in terms of the Latin rite the Church has made her mind clear time and time again and on that score everything has been said. It's just that some do not want to obey. Abp Muller points out that the bishops should encourage and show the spiritual reasons for celibacy and encourage priestly vocations.

Caritas said...

Let's say, I became priest. Who do you think the devil would go for?

God bless my wife and children and protect them from this heresy.

St Peter, who among many miracles witnessed the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ denied Him three times. Anyone still wonders why his sucessor Benedict XVI confirmed the celibacy of priesthood? Matthew 16:18

Providence never fails!

Caritas

Anonymous said...

"no one can affirm that they were married or that they were non-celibates after their ordinations."

St Paul does, in I Cor. 9:5.

"I Cor. 9:5 does not say most of the apostles were married, it merely teaches that apostles who are married have a right to receive support from the Church for themselves and their wives. The verse could be interpreted to mean that some or all of St. Paul, St. Barnabas, the Lord's Brothers, and St. Peter were at that time married, or it could mean that some or all of them had been married in the past but were now unmarried and possibly even vowed to celibacy, or it could mean only that if they were married then they and their wives have a right to be supported by the Church."

IT is in the present tense - it talks about St Peter (Kephas) and "the other apostles" being married NOW, i.e., contemporaneously with the writing of the epistle. It was understood so as late as the 11th century by cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, although, with no evidence other than his own imagination, (much like Conccini) he claimed the apostles had ceased to sleep with their wives.

Clerical marriage is an apostolic right, as is the right "to eat and drink". Just as the clergy today have the right to "eat and drink" they also have the right to "take a christian woman around as a wife."

"But most clergy have made solemn promises to God to remain unmarried, so that means the clergy in general have neither the right nor the ability to marry."

The promises are void as being exacted under duress, induced by deceit, and resting on the unconscionable conduct of high-ranking Latin-rite churchmen since the late 16th century.

The Clementine vulgate is an example of intellectual (and dare I say moral) bankruptcy at the highest levels of the counter-reformed church. Much like those who think they're pious catholics, but can't tolerate the truth about clerical marriage.

You are a convert, are you Jordan? Well, I have to observe that you're displaying a very protestant-like subjectivism in relation to this issue.

A traditionalist against compulsory celibacy.

Anonymous said...

"rather than 'halting' in a medieval cystalisation of catholicism."

Sorry, you're 100% wrong there. The typical mediaeval secular cleric was married. Right up to the establishment of the seminary system (which was actually establish in order to suppress clerical marriage).

Anonymous said...

"I became priest. Who do you think the devil would go for?"

Better tell the heroic married latin-rite clergy of communist Czechoslovakia that the devil was "going for them"!!

As for support of married clergy being "heresy", that's simply infantile. So, according to you, the married Eastern-rite clergy and those who support them are heretics??

"Caritas", your name is most inapt.

A traditionalist, etc

Gregorius Minor said...

Regardless of the arguments one wishes to adduce for or against priestly celibacy, some clarification is neede about the the married status of the Apostles.

St. Peter still has a mother-in-law in Luke 4 (and parallels), but it is not clear that he still has a wife. One may reasonably conjecture from the fact that she is not mentioned that she may be dead at the point when Peter is called to follow the Lord.

As for St. Paul, does he not say in 1 Cor. 7 "I wish that all may be as I am"?

I would suggest that anyone who thinks that we can start having married clergy again reada Msgr. Hughes book "The Church in Crisis", his history of the ecumenical councils, and his explanation (vis-a-vis) the Lateran councils, why the de-facto marriages of the early medieval clergy were a diaster for the medieval Church.

Caritas said...

Dear Traditionalist etc.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize, should you consider the word heresy to be offending. Please also consider its meaning (Wikipedia definition): heresy is a challenge to a prescribed system of belief, especially a religious one.

For the last few days, you have been challenging the Roman Catholic traditional belief of celibacy, recently confirmed by the Holy Father in Sacramentum Caritatis. As such you qualify as a heretic.

The latter statement is not judgmental but factual.

Of course, it does not apply to non-Roman Eastern Catholic priests who recognize the central role of the Bishop of Rome within the College of Bishops and follow a different sacramental and canonical discipline etc. Honor and glory to the role these Churches played in shaping Christianity as rightfully stated by John-Paul the Great in Orientale Lumen (1995).

As Roman Catholics, we care for the unity of the Church. We elect to follow the teachings of the Holy Father and his predecessors, and defend them against the heresy of all times.

Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next is considered tradition (Wikipedia). If your family is Eastern Catholic you may qualify as a traditionalist. Else, as stated by New Catholic you are an anti-tradition Traditionalist...What next?

As for my name, it is Caritas in Latin and not "ljubiti" in Slavonic. My family name and tradition happens to be Roman Catholic, nobody is perfect.

Providence never fails!

Caritas

Jordan Potter said...

Some anonymous person (hopefully not one of the Moonie/Milingoists) said: IT is in the present tense - it talks about St Peter (Kephas) and "the other apostles" being married NOW, i.e., contemporaneously with the writing of the epistle.

Now, it talks about St. Peter and the other apostles having (present tense) a right to receive support from the Church for themselves and for their wives in the case that they are married. But it does not actually affirm that any of them were at that time married. It might mean that some or all of them were at that time married, though it might not.

It was understood so as late as the 11th century by cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida,

That's hardly "late," as marriage, concubinage, and whoremongering among the clergy in the Latin Rite were quite common at that time. Anyway, Cardinal Humbert's understanding isn't necessarily correct.

although, with no evidence other than his own imagination, (much like Conccini) he claimed the apostles had ceased to sleep with their wives.

Yes, that is an ancient tradition, and it is related to the most ancient practice in both the East and the West for bishops to be celibate. St. Gregory of Tours in the 500s A.D., for example, attests to that law of the Church: if a bishop was married at the time of his consecration, then he was bound to abstain from sexual relations with his wife.

Clerical marriage is an apostolic right, as is the right "to eat and drink".

Eating and drinking are universal human rights, not apostolic rights. The apostles had a right to eat and drink because they were human, not because they were apostles. But that doesn't mean they had a right to eat and drink whatever and whenever and how ever much they liked. No one has that right. In the same way, their right to marriage was curtailed or even eliminated in virtue of the higher calling Jesus had given them.

It is interesting, however, that for you having a wife is comparable to feeding the body, the flesh, satisfying the belly.

The promises are void as being exacted under duress, induced by deceit, and resting on the unconscionable conduct of high-ranking Latin-rite churchmen since the late 16th century.

Nonsense. No one is forced to be or tricked into being celibate, no one is forced to receive Holy Orders or tricked into receiving them.

If you (and by "you" I don't necessarily mean you, but any celibate priest) are unable or unwilling to give Jesus what you promised to give him, then your priesthood is doomed. But don't play around with pseudointellectual rationalisations that your promises are null and void because high-ranking churchmen somehow tricked you into foregoing temporal fleshly pleasures for the infinitely greater pleasures of heaven. What is void is the validity of this attempt to evade the binding nature of the promises given to Jesus.

The Clementine vulgate is an example of intellectual (and dare I say moral) bankruptcy at the highest levels of the counter-reformed church.

A further illustration of the absurdity of a "traditionalist" who is opposed to Catholic Tradition. . . .

Much like those who think they're pious catholics, but can't tolerate the truth about clerical marriage.

Do not dare stoop to denigrating the faith, morality, and intellect of Catholics who agree with their church and accept Catholic Tradition. It takes much, much more than disageeing with your private opinions for someone to be morally and intellectually bankrupt.

You are a convert, are you Jordan? Well, I have to observe that you're displaying a very protestant-like subjectivism in relation to this issue.

Really? I don't find anything subjective about my submission to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. I have approached this matter objectively. However, I have found you opting for readings and interpretations of Scriptural texts that are championed by the Protestants, who for all practical purposes have no celibate clergy or religious. So pardon me while I laugh at your suggestion that I'm engaging in a Protestant-like subjectivism while you, who agree with the Protestants, are being objective.

A Catholic against compulsory and non-compulsory infidelity

Caritas said...

Fighting heresy is part of our Roman Catholic heritage. In 2008 the fight is still on, Deo gratias, we use words to defend the truth.

The Roman Catholic Church is surrounded with heresy: within and without! Hopefully, the 21st century Holy Communication Crusade will help expiate all its forms from Holy Mother Church.

This Crusade started a few years ago on the World Wide Web.

Kudos to New Catholic, Jordan Potter and many others for their perseverance fighting all forms of heresy on this blog and many other www battle grounds.

Veritate facientes in caritate.

Providence never fails!

Caritas

Jordan Potter said...

I must take exception at Jordan Potters (sic) mistakeningly (sic) grossly ignorant remarks concerning His Excellency, Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo

I think you meant to say, “concerning His excommunicated, schismatical, and heretical Excellency, Archbishop Emanuel Milingo.”

in which he says that the Archbishop is a moonie (whatever that is).

As you know perfectly well, a Moonie is a follower of Sun Myung Moon, who claims that Jesus failed to redeem the human race because His crucifixion made it impossible for him to get married, have sex, and raise a family, so God tried again and sent Moon as the new Messiah. For Moon, redemption happens through marriage and sex, but for Christianity redemption is accomplished through the total self-giving sacrifice of the Incarnate Word. For Moon, Jesus is a failure, but for Christians Jesus is Lord and Moon is a self-condemned false Messiah. For Moon, celibacy is contrary to God’s will, but Jesus says there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. Milingo participated in a Moonie mass wedding in 2001, which is where he got his “wife.” His international travels are subsidised by Moon’s Unification “Church,” and his organization that advocates an end to the celibate priesthood is just another of the many Moonie front groups.

The Archbishop is not and never will be a member of that sect and nor am I.

He denies that he is a member of the Unification Church, but his close cooperation with the Moonies and his participation in their chief “sacrament” contradicts his claims. Knowingly or unknowingly, Milingo is working as an agent of Sun Myung Moon to try to destroy the Catholic priesthood and the Catholic Church.

You also deny that you are a Moonie. I don’t know if you are or aren’t, so I’ll take you at your word. You are, however, giving public support for Milingo, who is a supporter and ally of Moon if not one of his followers. Maria Sung, the woman he pretends is his wife was chosen for him by Moon, and she is a Moonie.

Please see: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56046

That report only provides support for what I am saying.

Obviously Mr. Jordan, you do not know the Archbishop nor have even met him.

No, I’ve not had that misfortune, for which I thank God.

I can assure you that he is one of the most traditional catholic bishops living.

You are ignorant of what traditional Catholicism is, if you think an excommunicated and schismatic heretic who works with a spurious religion founded by a false Messiah could possible be “one of the most traditional Catholic bishops living.” He’s not even in communion with the Holy Father, so how could he possibly be a Catholic in any meaningful sense, let alone a traditional Catholic, let alone one of the most traditional Catholic bishops living?

When he leaves the Moonie woman he pretends is his wife, renounces his fellowship with the false messiah Moon, and does sufficient penance for his schismatical and heretical deeds and words, returning to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, then and only then will he be properly regarded once more as a Catholic bishop. As it is, faithful Catholics can only pray for his repentance and shed tears of sorrow for his efforts to overthrow the faith and devotion of God’s children.

He celebrates the Holy Mass so traditionally observing all the ablutions etc and rubrics in exact detail.

It takes much, much more than rubrical exactitude to be a traditional Catholic bishop.

The Archbishop of Freiburg is only saying what Mons. Milingo has been saying for years but the difference (sic) is Mons. Milingo has the courage of his convictions to action, for the Greater Glory of God and His Holy Church.

I will pray for you, that God will open your eyes and give you the grace to turn aside from your errors and your devotion to the shipwrecked archbishop Milingo.

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

The priest makes a CHOICE in the Latin traditon to forgoe marriage as to be able to focus on his flock. He's marrying the Church, is the way that I see it...Going back to the past just for the sake of going back to the past is wrong (Paraphrase of St. Pius X)

Jordan Potter said...

Hopefully New Catholic will check in here soon and remove some of the offending comments that the proponents of Miligoist priestly pseudomarriage continue to post . . .

Jordan, your idea of traditionalism is a mere cystalisation (sic) of mediaeval catholicism - Your faith is not the real living vibrant faith of that of Mons. Milingo.

You really didn't need to copy/paste my entire comment. In fact, for your purposes you didn't need to quote even a portion of what I said, as what you said has no connection with anything that I said. You're right, though, that my faith, Catholicism, is not the "real living vibrant faith" of Emanuel Milingo. Any Catholic whose faith is compared to that of Emanuel Milingo can only end up appearing to be more saintly than he really is. And I'm happy that my faith doesn't vibrate and quaver and shake back and forth all the time, but allows me some peace and rest in the Lord. Finally, there's no reason to think that you've got the slightest idea of what medieval Catholicism was, let alone what a crystallisation of medieval Catholicism would look like. It does seem likely, though, that your idea of traditionalism is a crystallisation of Catholicism during the first two or three centuries of Church history. The Church and her grasp of the deposit of faith have grown and developed greatly since then, and whether you like it or not, there's no going back to the days of the Church's infancy and childhood.

Anonymous said...

Jordan, you've hit the nail on the head so to speak when you said " The Church and her grasp of the deposit of faith have grown and developed greatly since then, and whether you like it or not, there's no going back to the days of the Church's infancy and childhood". And that is exactly why the Church must be forward thinking and adopt the possibilty of optional celibacy. No one and especially His Excellency, Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo wants to abolish this most noble option of celibacy. . So Archbishop Milingo whole heartedly agrees with you Jordan that 'there's no going back' and that the Church's 'grasp on the deposit of faith has to grow and be developed' - Developed to the extent as to finding a place for married priests and bishops. The Church at the moment has developed on the area of a married permanent Diaconate.Something unheard of in the Church before Vatican II. If Deacons can be married then surely it is a question of time before priests and bishops can be too.

Jordan Potter said...

Again you show your ignorance. There has never been a time when there have not been lawfully married deacons, priests, and bishops in the Catholic Church.

You also do not seem to understand that you will get nowhere in a forum of faithful Catholics by holding up an excommunicated, schismatic ally of a false messiah as an authority and heroic fighter for married priests. To advance your argument, you will need to cite Catholic authorities and will need to avoid Protestant-style private reinterpretations of Holy Scripture.

LeonG said...

"remains obligatory in the Latin tradition"

Erratum: "in the LatinLESS tradition".

Anonymous said...

the brazilian bishops will do the same,next days.....

Anonymous said...

Yes, you are right 'the Brazilian Bishops will do the same in the next few days'. In Brazil celibacy is not seen as being so important nor a great 'sacrifice'. In fact it is common for priests and several bishops (known cases) to already be in the 'marriage state'. Some years ago three Brazilian Bishops left the Church to formerly get married. There is also a very numerous permanent Diaconate. If Deacons can be married I can't see why priests and bishops can't be. In fact that great Archbishop Metropolian of Lusaka - Emmanual Milingo was in Brazil giving several of the Roman Catholic priests who live opening in a married state - moral support. In fact His Excellency Emmanual Milingo presided at a marriage of a Roman Ctaholic Priest in an official Salasian Parish church in Brasilia. That Archbishop - Emmanual Milingo is certainly a great champion and defender of Tradition along side with the late Archbishop Lefevre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer, Bishop Carlos Duarte da Costa and Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-Dinh-Thuc (Actually, Archbishop Thuc even supported the ieda of women priests at the Vatican II Council) !

Jordan Potter said...

In fact it is common for priests and several bishops (known cases) to already be in the 'marriage state'.

Sexual misconduct on the part of bishops and priests is hardly a new problem. Why, one of my mother's ancestors was a Scottish bishop in the 1500s who sired four children by his concubines. But that's no reason to lower our standards and cave in to societal pressure.

As for your hero Milingo -- guess what! Still excommunicated, still a heretic, still living in sin with a Moonie.

Anonymous said...

The "law" is founded upon this erroneous canon of Lateran II:

We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they ought to be in fact and in name temples of God, vessels of the Lord and sanctuaries of the holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they give themselves up to marriage and impurity.


Marriage, (classed as a kind of impurity due to the use of the conjunction "and") and therefore sex according to the law of nature within marriage cannot render a person impure. The idea, expressed in the canon, that it does render a man impure, is contrary to the teaching of the church.

Jordan Potter said...

An anonymous heretic said:

Marriage, (classed as a kind of impurity due to the use of the conjunction "and")

Wrong. The canon does not classify marriage as a kind of impurity -- it classifies the marriage of those who should not marry as a kind of impurity.

and therefore sex according to the law of nature within marriage cannot render a person impure.

No, even sex according to the law of nature within marriage can render a person impure, if his heart and mind go astray into lust before or during the conjugal act.

The idea, expressed in the canon, that it does render a man impure, is contrary to the teaching of the church.

No, what is contrary to the teaching of the Church is the sex within marriage cannot render a man impure, and that the Church does not have a right to call on clergy to be celibate.

New Catholic said...

Dear commentators:

Priestly celibacy is NOT up for debate - not in the Roman Curia, and certainly not here.

Any other comment against this most venerable practice of Apostolic origin will be deleted. Please, do not make me waste my time.

"Only recently, on 16 November 2006, Pope Benedict presided at one of the regular meetings held in the Apostolic Palace of the Heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia. On that occasion, the value of the choice of priestly celibacy in accordance with the unbroken Catholic tradition was reasserted and the need for the sound human and Christian formation of seminarians and ordained priests was reaffirmed." (source)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dcs said...

Canon III of the First Council of Nicaea:

"This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion."

So obviously all clergy, West and East, are to observe celibacy or at least continence, and any cleric committed to the traditional Faith should observe this Nicene canon.

By the way, married men were ordained in communist Czechoslovakia because celibate men were viewed with suspicion. This is clearly an example of epikeia or equity. The same circumstances definitely do not apply in most areas of the world today, certainly not in Western Europe or the United States.

Anonymous said...

While I agree with priestly celibacy and on its noble virtue. However there does seem to be a sort "sensus fideium" were the 'common' faithful and lots of priests seem to be favouring 'optional celibacy'. A few days ago the Association of Brazilian Roman Catholic Priests came out in favour of optional celibacy. (http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/20022008/25/manchetes-padres-brasileiros-pedirao-vaticano-celibato.html&printer=1
Even though most of the bishops and Cardinals are apparently against how long can they hold out against this 'revolution' beginning at "the bottom" ?