Posted on 11/19/2004 11:24:44 AM PST by NYer
Dear Kolokotronis,
I pretty much agree with this entire post, #73.
Celibacy is a good of its own right, not a way to save money.
sitetest
It is not mine to accept or rejct this. I am an outsider and I was merely pointing to the fact that it is not without a precedent to have married clergy in the West. However, I do believe that, as with many other things, the Church made mandatory celibacy for all Latin clergy a matter of irrevocable doctrine and changing it would be seen as an admission of error.
Well, no of course not. A Bishop is a direct descendent of an Apostle. A priest is merely a bishop's assistant. Without a bishop, a priest has no authoirty.
Celibacy means no marriage. It says nothing about fulfillment of "personal gratification".
As you know, NYer, celibacy of the lower clergy has not always been the rule in the Church
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach." [1 Tim 3:2]
"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." [1 Tim 3:12]
Note: the word deacon is often used in place of priest (i.e. bishops and deacons, etc.)
NYer, it seems to me you are placing the customs of the Church above the Holy Scriptures, traditions of men above the Holy Tradition! -- for there is nothing in the Bible that says bishops and clergy cannot be married! Nothing!
Yes, it is true, as you observe, that our Lord was celibate and so was John the Baptist, and most if not all Apostles were not married, but the fact is that celibacy is not ordained by God.
[Kolokotronis to NYer] The married couple represents Christ and His Church, no mean role!
"If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?" [1 Tim 3:5]
In fact, priests are to serve as model family men and their families as model families. This places a heavy burden on clergy's wives, but the standard is set clear:
"In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything" [1 Tim 3:11]
That's a pretty tall order, especially knowing that husbend's first and foremost priority is not the family but God.
Dear kosta50,
"However, I do believe that, as with many other things, the Church made mandatory celibacy for all Latin clergy a matter of irrevocable doctrine and changing it would be seen as an admission of error."
Well, not quite. Actually, not at all.
Even though celibacy is as highly valued in the Church in communion Rome as much as the Church in communion with Constantinople, the Church of Rome has not ever claimed that celibacy is a matter of doctrine. At all. Highly prized, yes. Matter of doctrine, no.
The fact is that the Catholic Church accepts married men into the priesthood as a matter of course in the Eastern Rites (except in the US, where the practice was suppressed for, I guess, about 100 years, and where it is being slowly and carefully re-introduced).
Even in the Latin Rite, the Catholic Church makes exceptions for married men who come over from other Christian ecclesial communities, or the occasional married Orthodox priest who might choose communion with Rome.
But celibacy has been the custom and tradition of the Latin Rite for a very, very long time. Many have criticized the Church for doing away with many small "t" (not of divine origin) traditions and customs over the past half-century. Although I don't agree with all of the criticisms, I think a good point is made that just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad.
I think it is wise for right now, at least, that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church preserve this small "t" tradition as the general rule of our Rite. I think there is much to commend the general rule of celibacy in the current era, and much to recommend against further change of centuries-old traditions.
sitetest
Just a note in the interests of full disclosure. I am a descendant of a priest, a Father Efstathios, many generations ago so of course I am quite grateful that the Church allowed him to be married!
"Just a note in the interests of full disclosure. I am a descendant of a priest, a Father Efstathios, many generations ago so of course I am quite grateful that the Church allowed him to be married!"
LOL.
Jesus Christ was God.
If a man marries simply to fulfill personal gratification, he has no business being married, whether he feels called to the priesthood or not.
Celibacy is not, nor has it ever been, doctrine. It is a discipline, and has already been compromised by allowing Anglican and Lutheran married ministers to peition for ordination to the priesthood after conversion.
Celibacy should be at the service of the priesthood, not the other way around.
Dear sinkspur,
"Celibacy should be at the service of the priesthood, not the other way around."
No, celibacy is at the service of the Church, and of God.
sitetest
Negative. Read Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira, 295-302 AD.
Incorrect. For starters, acquaint yourself with Melchesidech in the Old Testament and the following Matthew 19:12, 27-30; Luke 18:28-30 and the following from the Second Council of Carthage:
'ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus'
As for your references (also Mark 10:20-21), as well as from I Corinithians, it is clear that celibacy is held to a higher standard, but leaving one's wife, brother in the words of our Lord, does not imply celibacy is ordained by God. It simply says that placing God first will be rewarded. As to how will we ordinary people faire is a different story -- I can only say that God is merciful and just and whatever He decides for all of us will be merciful and just.
Celibacy became an absolute requirement of the Church in the West. Local (Latin) Councils of Elvira and Carthage (4th century) established celibacy for bishops and priests. Exceptions to the strict celibacy were introduced by the Vatican II (deacons and convert priests), but as far as the RCC is concerned, celibacy is good as dogma.
Which leaves Scriptural permission for priests and bishops to marry (1 Timothy) out in the cold. All other NT references only recommend and praise celibacy but do not make it mandatory. Thus, outlawing celibacy for clergy is contrary to Scriptures and is a local tradition that is open to change.
Thanks for the info.
On the contrary. As you and I both know, marriage is something you have to work at on a daily basis. Having been raised in the RC Church, I have observed the parish demands placed on clergy, both night and day. Since each Sacrament requires personal commitment, the strain on a priest who is married, IMHO, must be quite taxing. Again, I am well aware that GOA priests do marry. I just can't relate it to the RC priesthood.
The questions posited in my previous post were intended for Sinkspur but FR offers no way of distinguishing that when posting multiple recipients.
Dear kosta50,
"Celibacy became an absolute requirement of the Church in the West. Local (Latin) Councils of Elvira and Carthage (4th century) established celibacy for bishops and priests. Exceptions to the strict celibacy were introduced by the Vatican II (deacons and convert priests), but as far as the RCC is concerned, celibacy is good as dogma."
How can celibacy be as good as dogma in the Catholic Church when the Catholic Church permits more than 20 Eastern Catholic Churches to ordain married men? How can celibacy be as good as dogma in the Catholic Church when the Catholic Church, in the Latin Rite, ordains a small number of married men each year?
Remember, we Latins are oh, so rigid about dogma. If it's dogma, there are no exceptions. Period.
It is a very, very long-standing tradition of the Latin Rite to have a celibate clergy, and I think most of the folks here agree that it isn't a very good thing to throw traditions away willy-nilly, even when they are not part of Divine Revelation.
But it isn't dogma, or even close to it.
sitetest
I think the issue of whether or not the Roman Church views priestly celibacy as being mandated by the Bible has been pretty well decided. It does not. Here's a link to a discussion of the subject of priestly celibacy by an Eastern Rite Catholic:
http://www.east2west.org/discus/messages/24/71.html?1082749256
It is well worth a read. In an nutshell, the writer posits that the question of priestly celibacy in the Eastern Rite Churches is governed by the canons of the Council of Trullo (XIII, XXX & XLVIII, I think). He asserts that Rome had always accepted the Council of Trullo as binding on the Eastern Rite. The Canons of the Council of Trullo were codified for the Eastern Rite by +Pius XII and more recently by +John Paul II. The writer reminds the reader that the Maronite Church has always had a married clergy and has always been in communion with Rome. His reasoning leads one necessarily to the conclusion that the councils dealing with clergy marriage were all local and thus while they could establish discipline for given regions of the Church, they could not establish dogma for the whole Church or impose that discipline on the whole Church.
Monasticism has always been held in the East as being the pinacle of life. Priests were not held in the same reverence, even awe, that the monks were. Is it possible that given the limited monasticism of the West in the early centuries of the Church, the priesthood took on some of the exalted position monastics held in the East and thus the celibacy standard was applied to them?
Final question for NYer; you write: "Again, I am well aware that GOA priests do marry. I just can't relate it to the RC priesthood." Do you perceive a difference between RC and Orthodox priests in any priestly function? If not, I guess I don't understand your point. Enlighten me.
So, while it is not a dogma (i.e. theological) in nature, it is canonical within the Latin Rite. Sitetest says in #97 that the "Latins are oh, so rigid about dogma. If it's dogma, there are no exceptions. Period." But it seems to me that the canon law is equally inflexible when it comes to a Latin Rite priest, so for all practical purpose it is "dogma." The consequence of violating this rule is sacrilege (according to Catholic Encyclopedia). Anything that invalidates the Mysteries (Sacraments) is pretty serious stuff. Based on this thinking Pope Gregory VII prohibited married priests from saying Mass and people from hearing their Mass (because the sacraments would be invalid). How does the Church in the West reconcile this rule (that unchaste priests commit sacrilege) with married Catholic clergy?
The fact that some Protestant converts who are already married are allowed to be ordained falls under a different criterium -- and a double standard if one really wants to be fair about it!
Obviously, the converts are accepted under different vows -- for married people can't take the vows of chastity and celibacy! So, we have two mechanism of ordination -- one that strictly and without exception applies to "generic" Latin Rite priesthood and a different one for the "imports" from heretic branches of Western Christianity.
Celibacy is not just "preferred" as Kolokotronis seems to suggest -- and I agree -- but mandated and subject to the sin of sacrilege in one Rite, while completely "legal" in another Rite of the same (Roman Catholic) Church. How can one and the same thing be sacrilege in one case and perfectly valid in another? What is the guide? How can priests have different vows? How does that promote unity in the Church?
Dear kosta50,
"Based on this thinking Pope Gregory VII prohibited married priests from saying Mass and people from hearing their Mass (because the sacraments would be invalid). How does the Church in the West reconcile this rule (that unchaste priests commit sacrilege) with married Catholic clergy?"
That's easy. Because of itself, the marital relationship is chaste. So married priests violate need not violate any rule of chastity.
The consequences for violating the rule imposed by the pope were consequences for the violation of the rule, not for unchastity. We Catholics believe that the pope may bind in matters of discipline, and what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven.
Thus, the pope thought that celibacy was a good idea, enough of one to make a binding disciplinary rule about it. Violation of the rule incurred certain consequences, as defined by the rule.
The offense is violation of binding discipline, not unchastity. Thus, a married priest not bound to the rule of celibacy commits no evil act.
That one man might be bound to the rule, and another not is further evidence that the Catholic Church in no way considers this dogma. If it were dogma or doctrine, it would admit of no exceptions, no married man in the Catholic Chuch could be ordained to the priesthood.
"Obviously, the converts are accepted under different vows -- for married people can't take the vows of chastity and celibacy!"
False on two counts. First, a married couple might rarely take a vow of celibacy, perhaps late in life. It is not usually encouraged, but it is not impossible, either.
Second, no one need take a vow of chastity. All Christians, all human beings, are bound by natural law to be chaste. That is to say, all human beings are bound by natural law not to engage in sexual activity at all, except within marriage. Marital sex is chaste. A married couple who are faithful to each other, who are welcoming of new life, who do not contracept or perform unnatural acts, who mind their imaginations, thoughts, and consciences, but who engage in the marital act frequently, may well be completely and perfectly chaste.
"Celibacy is not just 'preferred' as Kolokotronis seems to suggest -- and I agree -- but mandated and subject to the sin of sacrilege in one Rite, while completely 'legal' in another Rite of the same (Roman Catholic) Church. How can one and the same thing be sacrilege in one case and perfectly valid in another? What is the guide? How can priests have different vows? How does that promote unity in the Church?"
It is similar to other things, as well. Though valid, leavened bread is illicit for use in the Sacrament in the Latin Rite. We use unleavened only. Though valid, unleavened bread is illicit in all the Eastern Rites. These customs and traditions are from very early in Church life, and the Church has always recognized valid and appropriate differences.
How can the Orthodox permit some married men to marry (those who will be what we call diocesan or secular priests) but not others (those who would be monks)? How can one and the same thing be sacrilege in one case and perfectly valid in another? What is the guide? How can Orthodox priests have different vows? How does that promote unity in the Church?
;-)
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.