Posted on 10/03/2005 10:35:36 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
Top Cardinal Plays Down Priest Shortage
By NICOLE WINFIELD Associated Press Writer
October 03,2005 | VATICAN CITY -- A senior cardinal played down the shortage of clergymen that has left many churches without priests to celebrate Mass, saying at the start of a meeting of the world's bishops Monday that access to the Eucharist was a gift, not a right for Catholics.
But Cardinal Angelo Scola, the relator, or key moderator of the Synod of Bishops, hinted at some flexibility on another divisive issue facing the church: its ban on giving communion to divorcees who remarry without getting an annulment.
The comments by the Venice archbishop came in a lengthy introductory speech, delivered in Latin, to the bishops on the first day of the three-week meeting on the Eucharist, or Mass, during which Catholics receive what they believe is the body and blood of Christ.
His comments drew immediate, if nuanced, criticism from two bishops who appeared with Scola at a news conference -- a hint of the debates that will likely ensue behind closed doors during the synod.
Monsignor Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines said the synod had to "squarely" confront the priest shortage issue, recounting how on his first Sunday as an ordained priest he celebrated nine Masses -- and that that was the norm in his country.
"It is the priest who makes the Eucharist," he said.
He said he didn't have any answers to the problem, but many church reform groups have called on the synod to discuss the celibacy rule for priests, saying the priesthood would grow if men were allowed to marry.
Scola, however, repeated in his speech what the church regards as the benefits of a celibate priesthood and said the synod should talk about a better distribution of priests in the world.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
"Except, of course, that the faith gradually but relentlessly contracted in the East, it didn't flourish. Christians probably reached their high watermark as a percentage of the Eastern Empire's population during the reign of Justinian."
Well, there are many reasons for this, but I think the "numbers" game is a dead end. The Church may have become smaller as a percentage of population, I honestly don't know, but it certainly became more fervent and I doubt anyone would argue that its theology didn't flower with men like +Symeon the New Theologian and +Gregory Palamas. In any event, didn't the Pope recently talk about the Western Church becoming smaller, contracting, but becoming thereby more vibrant and faithful to Holy Tradition?
Indeed he did, and moreover he made the suggestion with a strategic goal in mind - that a retrenchment would create a more effectively evangelistic Church.
This is in contradistinction to the near-total abandonment of missionizing by the East after the conversion of the Kievan Rus.
If it were not for the conversion efforts of Russian monks within the Czars' borders, Eastern evangelization would have died out completely.
Families with one son, or with one son and one daughter are not likely to steer and encourage their son toward the priesthood.
Families that are open to life and which have several sons and daughters are more likely to encourage vocations.
"This is in contradistinction to the near-total abandonment of missionizing by the East after the conversion of the Kievan Rus.
If it were not for the conversion efforts of Russian monks within the Czars' borders, Eastern evangelization would have died out completely."
I think you are generally correct, but as with most things, context is what is important. By 1000, the East was in a death struggle with Mohammadenism, which left few fields for, or indeed time for and interest in evangelization save in non-Mohammedan areas like Russia. The expansion of the Roman Church, on the other hand, extended across the globe since the Cross tended to follow the flag and the sword of Western European Imperialists. That sort of imperialism, other than in Russia, simply wasn't going on in the Eastern European/Middle Eastern Christian countries once the Mohammedans got going.
Of course, today its a different matter and Orthodoxy is expanding all around the globe, even in the First/New World as is of course Roman Catholicism and in a much more, shall we say, politically correct way than in former times.
That large sections of the Eastern Church were under the domination of Muslims might have a little something to do with the limited evangelization.
Don't forget that little centuries long jihad thing that put most of the Eastern Empire in Muslim hands and eventually smothered it. That would have an effect on the ability to evangelize, in fact it still does.
I agree. However, a large swath of Europe was under the domination of pagan Northmen and Spain was under the domination of the Muslims during the same period.
For a key period as well, Southern France was dominated by the nihilist Cathari.
Eventually, all three areas were Christianized.
I'm not trying to denigrate the East - simply pointing out that its Christianity is not any more authentic because of its isolation, its long association with the Roman Emperor or its cultural tradition.
i was making an argument in favor of the antiquity and authenticity of the Western Church and its practices.
Catholics are very tired of the argument: "If Easterners do it, it's more traditional, more authentic, more apostolic."
That's not a valid assumption.
" That would have an effect on the ability to evangelize, in fact it still does."
Indeed, Father, it did and does. One might say that we were busy doing other things, like surviving and preserving our Faith and cultures as best we could. 50 years of communism after WWII didn't help either.
"Catholics are very tired of the argument: "If Easterners do it, it's more traditional, more authentic, more apostolic."
That's not a valid assumption."
In many contexts, it is not only invalid, its also unfair. But in others, my friend, it's true. The Western Church has in praxis and dogma and the way of "doing" theology come up with what certainly appear to be innovations unknown to the One Church. Not all of these are necessarily bad or wrong, but they are innovations and thus different from what The Church did in the Patristic era. Orthodoxy, for any of a number of reasons, "isolation" under the heel of Mohammadenism being an important one, has pretty well, though not completely, preserved the praxis of the early Church in the East, as have, except for a few theological/ecclesiological points, many of the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome.
I remember back in the sixties when the Vatican II crowd tried telling the laity that the innovations of that council in the Mass and many of the sacraments was to return the Roman Church to its Eastern Apostolic roots. In very broad, general terms, I suppose that was at least a little bit true, but to tell Roman Catholics that the NO liturgy somehow brings your Eucharistic Liturgy back to "purer, ancient forms" is complete hogwash. I've been to many NO liturgies and while I can see practices which are vaguely reminiscent of ancient Eastern Liturgies, in fact its really more like a charicature than the real thing. The joke, unformuately, has been on the Roman laity.
Quite frankly I think your interpretation is a matter of reading something back into the test that didn't exist.
But I would say that your interpretation is a matter of reading into the text something that is not there,something absent that you can only hope was meant,given the societal and religious norms of the day. And further that you assume Christ was advocating a continuance of those norms.
I think the only scriptural argument you and others espousing your position have is the passage about bishops which I believe can be explained as a measure that was taken because the Apostles realized Christ was not going to return as soon as they had expected. At that point they had to assign men to lead the Church,quite possibly they had spent time in the homes of married couples and those males were the men they felt knew what Christ had taught as they,the Apostles,had taught them.The Gospels do not mention any Apostles' wives with the exception of Peter's wife's mother. To me,widowed at 27,makes me think Peter's wife predeceased him.
Jesus was celibate,He told Peter to follow Him,He talks about eunuchs who were thus for the sake of the Kingdom,He tells the young man who seeks to be perfect to go sells his possessions and follow him,He tells them there will be no marriages in Heaven and there are other things he said that argue strongly for celibacy.
Paul,who was also celibate mentions the benefits of celibacy many times,so with the exception of the Bishops being married to one wife and demonstrating the ability to be a good head of the household there is scarcely any biblical support for your position. I really think it has been disregarded by some rites/churches because it is such a "hard" saying.
You're totally right!!...I mean those married men, like Moses, David, Noah, Jacob, Isaac, Peter could NEVER be devoted to God...you've nailed it dead on!
Meanwhile the gay priests the RCC in America has ignored for the last 40 years are WAYYYYYY more devoted because they took their vows of celibacy...What was I thinking in my viewpoint of this all this time!
Ok, I'm being a bit sarcastic and outlandish, but the point is this...men both married and not married are just that...men. They will be weak and sinful and lust, lie, cheat, drink too much and do things that displeases God...they CANNOT do otherwise because they are men...Do they do their best not to--I'd would say most do...however, would you not agree there are aweful priests who are celibate and at the same time aweful married ministers? So which is worse or better? Neither, that's the point...
What I can't fathom is why the RCC insists that a man who is celibate ALWAYS will be more devoted to serving God and his parish...My pops is a Lutheran minister and he's as devoted and faithful to his calling as any clergyman you will meet...He always fulfilled his parishes needs first before our families needs...it is possible to be married and at the same time be a loyal servant who is dedicated to the call of God...Why this is so strongly refused by the RCC (unless they are converts, which to me is completely ironic) I will never understand no matter how many times the explanations are delivered...
I know you disagree and I respect your opinion, I just can't seem to find a convincing reason why I would look at it from your perspective and see my perspective as 1)unscriptural and 2) outside of RCC tradition--as I'm sure you're well aware there were married bishops, priests for many years...
Blessings in Christ...
Please give me a simpletons explanation on how an annulment can be given and that person then is no longer considered divorced...I'm having a hard time following that...I'm not seeking a link, just a simple basic answer...thanks..
Well played...
Why would the Council "absoultely forbid" this when they well knew that it is an acceptable thing to be married and be a priest or bishop per the apostles themselves?
I never said or suggested anything of the kind.
perhaps you should speak to the point instead of creating fanciful straw men.
What I can't fathom is why the RCC insists that a man who is celibate ALWAYS will be more devoted to serving God and his parish
That is not the Catholic Church's position. The Church's position is that of St. Paul as expressed in First Corinthians.
A strong argument or a preference for celibacy is not the same as MANDATORY celibacy. This is where the Roman Church errs, it cannot claim from the Scripture that celibacy is MANDATORY for all clergy everywhere.
If the Apostle Paul himself says clearly and without reservation that Bishops / Presbyters / Deacons can be married what special knowledge do you possess that allows you to claim otherwise? Do you see any finer print that says "This is just for a short time until we can get a big enough pool of celibates?" Is there any place in the Scripture where Jesus or anyone else says anything to the effect that "all clergy must always and everywhere be celibate?" Is there any passage at all anywhere where God shows special favor to one he has called simply because they are not married?
The simple thruth is that there aren't any passages like this and the Roman Church's practice on this matter is founded in suggestion perhaps and tradtition certainly but it is not and never has been by Apostolic command.
Forgive my rather fervent first response.
One of the basic rules of interpretation of Scripture is that clearer passages interpret obscure ones.
Three passages in First Corinthians, First Timothy, and Titus specifically mention the marriages of apostles or clergy and none prohibit it. Many passages in the Bible affirm the value of marriage as something holy and good and none prohibit it when it is lawful.
One the celibacy side we do see a number of passages where the value of the unmarried life is presented but in none of those cases is it presented as a mandate but rather as a choice. Please look at the texts for yourself and in any language you wish, it won't change.
So the clear reading is simple. Chastity is always valued (and marriage is a form of chastity). Christians themselves may choose to be married or not as they feel God would call them to be. Both ways of life are holy. Both have their challenges and their strengths. These options are open to all Christians regardless of their role in the Church.
One may postulate all they want about the personal lives of the Apostles but none of it will change the simple basic truth that in the New Testament era clergy were allowed to be married. One can trace the historic development of celibacy in the West ad nauseum and those texts will not go away. One can value the gifts and calling of celibate clergy or their church's understanding of these things and still the fact remain stubborn things.
The only ways around those texts involve some very dubious propositions. One must insert facts not in evidence like this was a stop gap measure until celibacy could be established or assume that the Apostles and all clergy even if they were married remained in complete continence all their ministering lives. Or one must play with the Greek to change "wives" to the generic "women" while ignoring the context. Those are big steps to make and the burden of proof lies with those who would over-ride what is very clear in the New Testament, namely that clergy can marry, with these other possibilities.
The Roman Catholic Church understands this and has not made celibacy a dogma but rather a discipline. As such it can change it any time it wishes to through its own structures. Quite frankly, and I am not a Roman Catholic, I think it should because I believe it has missed out on the gifts and calling of many holy men simply because they chose, what the Christian faith has always allowed for all men, namely holy marriage.
Interesting. In the Latin rite this would mandate complete abstinence since we have the practice of daily Mass. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Orthodox do not. Perhaps this is the reason for our difference concerning this matter.
Beyond just begging the question, I would assume that it would also be completely proper to live with one's mother but they felt the need to say so.
Not every Orthodox congregation insists upon it, but it is the general rule.
Perhaps this is the reason for our difference concerning this matter.
I'm going to say no, since I believe daily Mass began as a monastic practice in communities that were already celibate prior to the daily Eucharist.
Daily Mass did not become common among the laity until a few centuries later, when the intentionally isolated monastic communities became surrounded by newly developed towns and villages.
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.