Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Scarpetta

There was no celibacy in the Catholic church until the priests in Spain started to give “church” property to their wives and children


184 posted on 03/26/2011 7:03:00 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: RnMomof7
There was no celibacy in the Catholic church until the priests in Spain started to give “church” property to their wives and children

Are you saying that was during the early 4th century?
196 posted on 03/26/2011 7:16:59 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]

To: RnMomof7
There was no celibacy in the Catholic church until the priests in Spain started to give “church” property to their wives and children

Since you give no era for this claim, I will post from early Church history on celibacy in the service of God.

Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and Church History gives a good picture from the fourth century on. Here are some excerpts:

Clerical continence in the West

a. Fourth century legislation

Convincing testimonies to the normative nature of clerical continence in the fourth century can be found in individual Western patristic authors (such as Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome). The first known example of actual legislation is c. 33 of the Spanish Council of Elvira, the usual date of which is given as ca. 305. It reads:
We decree that all bishops, priests and deacons in the service of the ministry are entirely forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives and to beget children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honour of the clergy.17

There is a similar canon which certain manuscripts ascribe to the First Council of Aries (314), considered to be a sort of General Council of the West. Canon 29 reads:
Moreover, (concerned with) what is worthy, pure, and honest, we exhort our brothers (in the episcopate) to make sure that priests and deacons have no (sexual) relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry every day. Whoever will act against this decision, will be deposed from the honour of the clergy.18

The wording of these canons does not immediately suggest that an innovation is being introduced, and it would be an error in historical procedure to maintain a priori that such was the case. The seriousness of the implications for the life of the clergy, the absence of justification for the strictness of the discipline and the canonical penalty attached, would suggest, on the contrary, that the Church authorities were concerned with the maintenance and not the introduction of this rule. The important papal decretals of the fourth century, which indicate the rule for all the West — Directa (385) and Cum in unum (386) of Pope Siricius; Dominus inter of Innocent I (or Damasus?), and the Synod of Carthage (390) — were in fact emphatic that clerical continence belonged to immemorial, even apostolic, tradition.19 Patristic writings are often explicit in considering the apostles as models of the priesthood. Yet those who might have been married were thought not to have lived other than in continence?20

Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent bishop at the Council of Nicaea, writes in the Demonstratio Evangelica, I, 9 (3 15-325): «It is fitting, according to Scripture, ‘that a bishop be the husband of an only wife’. But this being understood, it behoves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal intercourse with their wives.» St Jerome, who had a good knowledge of the Eastern Churches, writes to the priest Vigilantius (406): «What would the Eastern Churches do? What would (those of) Egypt and the Apostolic See do, they who never accept clerics unless they are virgins or continent men, or if they had had a wife, (accept them only) if they give up matrimonial life...» (Adversus Vigilantium, 2).

Epiphanius (315-403), born in Palestine and consecrated bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, condemns all forms of encratism but nonetheless insists that priests themselves are required to live continently, as regulated (he believed) by the apostles. Priestly continence is observed, he maintains, wherever the ecclesiastical canons are adhered to, human weakness and the shortage of vocations being inadequate reasons for clergy to contravene the rule.38

Synesius. of Ptolemais, of the Libyan Church, knows that he is expected to live in continence with his wife if made bishop,39 and Palladius the historian reports that a synod presided over by John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the year 400, condemned Anton inus, Bishop of Ephesus, for doing what was forbidden by the ‘holy laws’ including resuming common life with his wife.40

Other testimonies to be taken into special account include Origen (d. ca. 253) (23rd homily on Numbers, 6th homily on Leviticus), Ephraem Syrus (Carmina Nisibena, 18 and 19 [ca. 363]), and the Syriac Doctrina Addei (ca. 400).

Thus has it been almost from the beginning of Church history. Your statement is wrong.

214 posted on 03/26/2011 7:46:52 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson