Posted on 03/08/2017 12:27:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Crux has the scoop:
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.”
Francis called for the question to be faced in the Church “fearlessly.”
“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.”
It is more that mere “acceptance.” They both recommend it as something good.
Your second flaw is that because the presbyters have a different title than the temple priesthood that they could not have a sacerdotal function. Abraham and the patriarchs offered sacrifices without being temple priests. One of the functions of a presbyter is to celebrate the Mass or Lord's Supper following our Lord's instruction of "do this in memory of me." The Last Supper (the "this" our Lord was referring to) was not just a simple meal. It was a sacrificial meal, the new Passover. It is clear from the words that our Lord spoke when he instituted the Eucharist:
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." (Luke 22:19-20)His Body and Blood that were given to the Apostles were sacrificial elements just as the lamb of the Jewish Passover was a sacrificial offering. This was also the understanding of the early Christians:
The DidacheOnly someone's adherence to the man-made traditions of the Protestant reformers could blind one from recognizing the historical fact that the early Christians did, indeed, view the Mass as a sacrifice."Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
Pope Clement I
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
Still less than PRAISE!!
I just LOVE history; specially when Early Church Fathers are involved!!!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Saying that something would be good to do seems like praise to me.
Cardinal Newman on Conscience
It seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word
Conscience is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.
John Henry Cardinal Newman, from a letter to the Duke of Norfolk.
Also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, revised edition 1999, Article 1778 ****
St Thomas Aquinas on Obedience
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
****
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on the role of the people in the church
Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.
No, your argument has two flaws, one grammatical and one theological.
Your first flaw is insistence that the word "priest" can have only one unequivocal meaning. Thus if it means hiereus it cannot mean presbuteros at the same time. Language does not work that way.
Tell that to the Holy Spirit, who never uses “hiereus” for presbuteros/episkopos, but only for a separate sacerdotal class! The problem is not that presbyteros evolved into priest but that this is the same term used for a separate sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided.
If it did then please give me the one unequivocal meaning for "right" or "bow." Words can have more than one meaning.
Indeed, but that is a fallacious basis for arguing that they must have more than one meaning, and to justify using the same term for two offices contrary to what the Holy Spirit does!
Your second flaw is that because the presbyters have a different title than the temple priesthood that they could not have a sacerdotal function. Abraham and the patriarchs offered sacrifices without being temple priests.
But that was not a special ordained function as with the separate sacerdotal class: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices.."Hebrews 10:11)
Moreover, I included presbyters in the general sacerdotal priesthood of all believers, but the objection is to making them into a separate sacerdotal class, as OT priests were,
One of the functions of a presbyter is to celebrate the Mass or Lord's Supper following our Lord's instruction of "do this in memory of me."
Wrong again! You are simply reading into the text a unique sacerdotal pastoral function which simply is not there, and is nowhere shown or taught in the record of the NT church in Scripture. Which only manifestly clearly describes the Lord's supper in one epistle (aside from simple breaking of break and the "feast of charity") , contrary to it being the priestly Queen of sacraments/sacrifice for sins around which all else revolves.
As said, nowhere in Acts onward are NT pastors shown 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. Nor are they charged with does so, let alone uniquely, but as said, in contrast they are charged with 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)
The Last Supper (the "this" our Lord was referring to) was not just a simple meal. It was a sacrificial meal, the new Passover. It is clear from the words that our Lord spoke when he instituted the Eucharist: Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." (Luke 22:19-20)
Which vain argument by assertion is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, which is that the semi-literal metaphysical (that is what it is) understanding of Catholicism is what Scripture elsewhere reveals these words to mean, versus the metaphorical meaning. But it is only the latter which easily conflates with the rest of Scripture, and John in particular. Which may be another thread.
The Didache...Pope Clement I ...Ignatius of Antioch
Which uninspired, fallible speech simply testifies to the progressive deformation of the church , if not necessarily salvifically here.
The Didache - The Complete Text
Catholic Word of the Day: DIDACHE (Teaching of the twelve Apostles), 03-20-14
Excerpt from: The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
What the early Church had to say about abortion
Church History: The Didache [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Week: DIDACHE (Teaching of the twelve Apostles), 05-18-10
Early Christians and Abortion
The Time Capsule
The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
The Didache - The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations
Ratzinger said the like, and the same applies to obeying the OT magisterium, dissent from which was a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) as well as to civil courts, to which general submission is also enjoined.
However, you are confusing what must be allowed, if fallible (and can apply to pro-choice Caths), and what is required for faithfulness to the RC church, which (imaginatively) claims protection from (at least) salvific error. Thus citing conscience (as Luther did) will not make you an obedient RC in her sight.
***But yet marriage is held in disdain by so many Roman Catholics.***
You shouldn’t talk about things you know nothing about. Marriage is one of the Sacraments. That’s like saying Catholic’s hold Baptism in disdain.
I have every right to disagree or have an opinion about the Pope, bishops, etc. That does not make me a “dissident,” as you say, it makes me a discerner. I’m not going to explain myself further to someone who isn’t even Catholic.
Rather, based on papal teaching to disagree with such, then you are a dissident, according expressed therein, and based on writings of your own church i can say so, even as i can expose Muslims who teach contrary to Muhammad.
Of course, mainline RCs call traditional RCs dissidents can vice versa, but rather than being like Protestants who ascertain the validity of teaching by examination of the basis for it, as the quoted papal teaching expresses, faithful RCs are to follow their leadership .
Marriage of priests is the topic here. Let’s keep up, shall we?
Obviously.
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matthew 19:10-12)
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)
To me; it seems like a mighty limited subset.
Then there MUST be plenty of 7-8 reply Catholic Caucus threads you can find, so as not to be challenged.
Never said that it wasn't.
We’re good.
Stick to Protestant pontificating, something you know about.
My comment to you was about marriage. Maybe you should go read what At Paul says about the tongue. You might learn something.
St.Paul
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.