Pope signals openness to ordaining married men as priests, calls for Church to face shortage

https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/03/08/pope-francis-signals-openness-ordaining-married-men/

Pope Francis has expressed openness to a renewed consideration of married priests in the Catholic Church, especially the possibility of ordaining the so-called viri probati, meaning tested married men, who could be called into clerical service.

“Then we have to consider what tasks they could perform, for instance in isolated communities,” the pontiff said.

While the question put to Francis specifically referred to ordaining viri probati as deacons, many theologians and some bishops have also suggested they could be considered for priestly service.

The pope’s comments came in a new interview with the German newspaperDie Zeit, excerpts from which were published on Wednesday, with the full version set to appear on Thursday.

At the same time, Francis appeared to rule out simply making priestly celibacy optional, saying that approach “is not a solution.”

Calling diminishing vocations to the priesthood an “enormous problem,” Francis said the first response must be prayer, coupled with a more intense focus on “working with young people who are seeking orientation.”

A lack of priests, Francis said, weakens the Church “because a Church without the Eucharist doesn’t have strength – the Church makes the Eucharist, but the Eucharist also makes the Church.”

“Fears close doors, freedom opens them, and even when [the space for] liberty is small, it opens a window,” he said.

At present, most Catholic are expected to remain celibate, although Catholicism does include 23 Eastern churches in full communion with Rome whose clergy are allowed to marry. In the United States, there are also a few hundred former Protestant ministers who’ve entered the Catholic Church as married men and permitted to remain married after being ordained as Catholic priests.

In April 2014, a Brazilian bishop said he and Pope Francis had discussed the idea of ordaining the viri probati in a private conversation and the pontiff appeared open to the idea, suggesting it’s up to bishops’ conferences to make proposals along those lines.

Last November, Francis crossed Rome to meet with a community of seven families, all led by men who had left the priesthood to become married. There had been speculation that Francis might choose to devote the next Synod of Bishops in 2018 to the topic of married priests, but instead the focus of that gathering will be on youth, faith and vocational discernment. In another portion of the interview, Francis, as he has on other occasions, sounded an alarm about the rise of political populism in the West today. “Populism is evil and ends badly, as the past century has shown,” he said, arguing that it means “using the people” by offering them a messiah.

Francis also rejected the suggestion that he’s something special, saying, “I am a sinner and I am fallible.”

As he has many times in the past, he suggested that exaggerated celebration of a pope is actually dangerous.

“We must not forget that the idealization of a person is always a subliminal kind of aggression,” he said. “When I am idealized, I feel attacked.”

The only Scriptural argument you can have is that is no reason that the church cannot possibly allow those who have chosen celibacy to be candidates.

Exactly. I never said that there is a Scriptural reason that they must be celibate, only that the Church is free to require it as matter of discipline (the exercise of the Power of the Keys). I reject the unbiblical notion that present day disciplines all require a biblical precedent.

The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning.

In this case it is not an etymological fallacy since the term priest has continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood. That it has also gathered to itself a second meaning to refer to a sacerdotal ministry does not take away from its original and continuous meaning.

Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for priest, and for NT pastors, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors.

You are attempting to use a circular definition when you use priest for hiereus in your argument. Since the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, I will restate your argument:

Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for sacerdotal ministers, and for NT priests, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT priests.

The proper conclusion of your argument that we need two different terms is to reintroduce sacerd into English to refer to sacerdotal ministers and stop referring to them as priests, which is a NT term for the Catholic priesthood.

Exactly. I never said that there is a Scriptural reason that they must be celibate, only that the Church is free to require it as matter of discipline (the exercise of the Power of the Keys). I reject the unbiblical notion that present day disciplines all require a biblical precedent.

Which means you simply have no real authority for your requirement. You can invoke "the Power of the Keys" but that is itself based on Scripture, and which it cannot withstand, and which refutes Rome.

Yet the validity of this claim does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares..

Meanwhile, as explained, even the EOs differ as regards making celibacy a requirement in the way Rome does, yet both claim unchanging perpetuation of apostolic tradition, .

In this case it is not an etymological fallacy since the term priest has continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood.

WRONG! The so-called "power of the keys" will not allow you change Scripture or history. Even if some post-Scriptural Christians distinctively called NT pastors "priests" that does not justify them doing what the Spirit nowhere did, nor make NT pastors into Catholic priests.

The sacerdotal term priest has NOT continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood, and repeating this specious claim will not make it true. The original and continuous meaning of the words in the NT for the NT pastorate were presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer), and which denote the person in the same office, (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5) the first word being one of age or position and the second denoting the function of the first. And whose primary function was that of prayer and preaching the word, (Act 6:3,4) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28 with the word of God by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desires the milk of the word, (1Pt. 2:2) and then receives the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) and letting it dwell in them richly. (Col. 3:16) By which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) with doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)

And nowhere are NT pastors shown distinctive engaging in the distinctive sacerdotal function that denotes the office of priest, which for the Catholic priesthood is primarily that of conducting the Lord's supper as priests, offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. All that must be read into the record of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels).

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

Accordingly, as said, NT pastors were never called priests by the Holy Spirit distinct from the general priesthood of all believers.

You are attempting to use a circular definition when you use priest for hiereus in your argument. Since the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, I will restate your argument:

As your premise is wrong so also is your conclusion. For you can only wish that the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, denoting an office with a primary sacerdotal function, for instead the Holy Spirit never refers to NT presbyter as hiereus - which distinctive term He continues to use for sacerdotal OT and pagan priests and the general sacerdotal priesthood of all believers.

Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for sacerdotal ministers, and for NT priests, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT priests.

You own argument is self-destructive, since the Holy Spirit NEVER uses the word that even you affirm that He distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister to refer to NT presbyters, meaning they are not distinctively referred to as sacerdotal ministers, “hiereus” or “archiereus," which are only used in the NT for priests, and thus your sophistical semantics get you nowhere.

The proper conclusion of your argument that we need two different terms is to reintroduce sacerd into English to refer to sacerdotal ministers and stop referring to them as priests, which is a NT term for the Catholic priesthood.

Wrong again, for the proper conclusion of my argument is that presbuteros/episkopos are not distinctively referred to as sacerdotal ministers/hiereus/sacerdos/priests, and thus we simply need to respect the different terms which the Holy Spirit uses for priests and presbuteros/episkopos, respectively, rather than assigning a unique sacerdotal function to NT pastors, as those who offer sacrifices for sins.

Yet priest was originally, and continues to be, a presbyteral term, not sacerdotal

Once again, as is your recourse, you simply repeat a fallacy, and then use that to justify another fallacy. Rather than priest was originally being l a presbyteral term, meaning senior/old, the word for priest is never used for that office, and only refers to those in sacerdotal function.

For hiereus they used, as I have said, sacerd. The Catholic priest occupies the office of presbyter, which is its proper name in Latin.

But while explanatory, this simply does not justify giving presbuteros the same distinctive term used distinctively for those in the sacerdotal office called hiereus. Regardless of the etymology of the English word, if hiereus is the Greek term for priest, which it is, giving presbuteros the same distinctive term is not Scriptural.

Nor does a homosexual have any validity insisting a person in "gay clothing" (Ja. 2:3) refers to homosexual since that is what "gay" has come to mean.

The Catholic priest occupies the office of presbyter, which is its proper name in Latin

No it does not, since it describes a separate celibate sacerdotal class whose primary active function is, or includes, conducting the Lord's supper as priests, offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. Which is nowhere seen, versus feeding the flock by preaching the word of God.

If, as you claim, the term priest was not continually used in its original sense, when did it stop referring to the office of presbyter (an office that has continued to exist through the centuries in the Catholic priesthood)?

Again, etymology does not define the original meaning. Hiereus never began referring to the office of presbyter in Scripture , nor has the Catholic priesthood. Instead, both must be read into Scripture. Stoop trying to essentially correct the Holy Spirit of Christ!!!

1 Timothy 3:1-4 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

Is there something about *must be* that you don't get?

And then there's this about requiring celibacy.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 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, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

And Catholics can split semantic hairs all they want about requirements for priests, but the plain and simple fact is that a married man cannot become a priest in the Roman Catholic church and if a priest wants to marry, he must leave the priesthood.

And the forbidding of marriage is a mark of false teaching as told us by the Holy Spirit.

Rather than priest was originally being l a presbyteral term, meaning senior/old, the word for priest is never used for that office, and only refers to those in sacerdotal function.

False! Old English called them priest precisely because they were presbyters. Those holding the sacerdotal function were called sacerd.

No, for we are dealing with translating the term for those in the presbuteros/episkopos office as that which is used for those who occupy the sacerdotal office, this being hiereus. In your own official (for America) hiereus is translated as "priest" (as in Heb. 10:11; Rv. 1:6), denoting a sacerdotal class. But which is what RC pastors are distinctively called, not elders (even though the NAB correctly has presbyters in Titus 1:5, while the CRB is inconsistent in this matter). And in function Catholic priests are a separate sacerdotal class, distinctively called "priests," and are also distinctive from NT presbuteros/episkopos (which single office she also splits in two) which are not a separate sacerdotal class.

While "priest" evolved from Late Latin presbyter, it poorly represents it, unlike "elder" and "overseer" for presbuteros/episkopos respectively, and thus "priests" is what most any Bible translates hiereus as, which is the word used distinctively for a separate sacerdotal class, from OT to pagan priests to all believers. But which does not describe NT presbuteros, who are nowhere called hiereus.

Also,

"So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter... When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar), Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.

Thus it is wrong to use the word that denotes a separate class of sacerdotal priests, which in Greek is hiereus, for NT pastors.

First, I notice that you did not answer my questions. When did Catholic presbyters, whose office dates from the New Testament, cease being presbyters?

When asking what is the correct term to use for translating presbuteros it must be remembered that it is not just a question of translating an ancient Greek word but that the office of presbuteros continues to exist in the church today uninterrupted from the time of the New Testament. In English that office has always been called priest. A second, attached meaning does not invalidate its original meaning.

No, for we are dealing with translating the term for those in the presbuteros/episkopos office as that which is used for those who occupy the sacerdotal office, this being hiereus.

You have it backwards, for we are dealing with translating the term for those who occupy the sacerdotal office, this being hiereus, as that which is used for those in the office of presbuteros. Priest is, and always has been, the English word for presbuteros.

""So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter..."

Fr. Brown was referring to the Latin/Greek terms of sacerdos/hiereus, not the English term priest, which would not exist for another 800 years! Since English today has lost a specific term for hiereus (i.e. sacerd), he is forced to use the term priest, which is also used in English for presbyter.

First, I notice that you did not answer my questions. When did Catholic presbyters, whose office dates from the New Testament, cease being presbyters?

Then what you did not notice was that, as expressed, the distinctive celibate sacerdotal class called Catholic priests are distinctively not NT presbyters, thus they do not date from the New Testament, but are distinctively called priests, using a word that evolved but which does not reflect its distinctive function.

When asking what is the correct term to use for translating presbuteros it must be remembered that it is not just a question of translating an ancient Greek word but that the office of presbuteros continues to exist in the church today uninterrupted from the time of the New Testament. In English that office has always been called priest.

Wrong again, as it is the issue of translating the Greek with a corresponding word, hiereus long ago was translated as priest (Latin sacerdos), versus presbuteros, which means senior, but in Catholicism presbyteros took on the meaning of sacerdos.

Priest is, and always has been, the English word for presbuteros

A bare assertion, while Tyndale (c. 1494–1536), for one, going back to the Greek, translated presbuteros as elder instead of priest. Since the Vulgate itself called OT priests sacerdos, from hiereus, and which Latin is translated into English as priests, then the distinction is warranted btwn the two, reflecting the distinction the Holy Spirit made. We are long past the days of Old English, which does not establish what correct translation should be.

Fr. Brown was referring to the Latin/Greek terms of sacerdos/hiereus, not the English term priest, which would not exist for another 800 years! Since English today has lost a specific term for hiereus (i.e. sacerd), he is forced to use the term priest, which is also used in English for presbyter.

And which supports my argument for which Brown is invoked, since the English term which came to be used for Latin sacerdos from hiereus was not originally applied to bishop and presbyter then that distinction is warranted, and using the same term for both is wrong.

If priest was a corresponding term for presbyterous in distinction to to hiereus then you would have a case for its use, but instead it is wrong to justify using the same term for both presbyterous and hiereus when the Holy Spirit makes a distinction by never doing so.

Time to sleep.

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.