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.”
“Yet the Church is credited with putting together the Bible in its complete form.”
God used Satan to crucify Jesus, but does that mean Satan is good and holy. It never ceases to amaze me just how full of themselves they can be.
Are you saying that you do not believe in Christ? And the choices he made for apostles? Most of them single and celibate!!
What in Catholicism effects such absurd logic and conclusions? Rather than rejecting the requirement of a clerical celibacy meaning a rejection of Christ, the poster correctly states that this is not a part of Christ’s teachings, even though it may be allowed, (Mt. 19:10-12) but which is an exception in Scripture for pastors (1Tim. 3:1-7), and normally presupposes one has that gift, which has holy advantages. (1Co. 7:7,32-34)
And rather than rejecting the choices the Lord made for apostles, with most of them single and celibate, even their street-level leader was married, as were all but two apostles.
And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them. (Luke 4:38-39)
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)
They evidently did leave their families for a time in devotion to discipleship and ministry, however this was not permanent, nor was Peter and Barnabas under a vow of celibacy, for they had the power (exousia; liberty: cf. 1 1Co. 8:9) to lead about a wife as the rest of the apostles.
And the requirement of clerical celibacy was indeed a latter development Catholic Dues finds:
Early heretics, such as Manichaeans and Montanists, added a negative influence by proclaiming that sexual expression - including that of the laity - was impure. Catholic leaders, such as St. Augustine, taught that Original Sin was transmitted through intercourse. Therefore, abstinence and virginity was the ideal life and only the weak should marry. However, most bishops and presbyters continued to marry. In fact, the only marriages that had to have any kind of blessing were those of deacons and priests. (p. 168)
The tradition of celibacy continued to evolve. In some places it was expected that priests be not sexually active after ordination. When monastic spirituality became popular in the fourth and fifth centuries, it promoted the ideal of celibacy as a model for all priests.
One way church authority enforced celibacy was by ordaining monks, who took the vow of chastity, to evangelize large areas of Europe. Church authority continued to mandate celibacy. The First Lateran Council (1123-1153) forbade those in orders to marry and ordered all those already married to renounce their wives and do penance. Later legislation declared the marriages of clerics not only illegal but also invalid. Widespread disregard of these laws continued until a reorganization of preparation for priesthood following the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent in the 1500's. (Greg Dues, "Catholic Customs & Traditions: A Popular Guide," [1992]; pp. 168,169 )
You therefore owe LibFreeUSA an apology for essentially charging him with not believing in Christ
And God used a donkey to rebuke Balaam.
It's simply the fact they love TITLES!
From the simplest 'Father' (biblically warned against); to the magnamimous (applied to Mary); they love their labels.
All the way from the lofty Pope, continuing thru Patriarchs, Cardinals, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and finally Vicars; one just HAS to be impressed by the many labels handed out.
Even the lowly saint of Scripture has been highjacked to describe dead people assumed to be in Heaven now; listening; advising and helping the cause.
Many are...
Matthew and Luke both agree:
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Matthew 3:10 Luke 3:9
This seems a wee bit judgmental...
Where is the SCORN for the folks who VOTED to ELECT Francis??
Where is the LEADING of the Holy Spirit seen?
And FR has ELSIE!
You need to document that, while as "to "just how would marriage help?," the answer is that it would make the pastorate less attractive to homosexuals, seeing as they would not be in a community of single men, many of which are homosexuals, but if as seen in Scripture, the pastorate would normatively consist of heterosexual men.
Of course, none of them were part of a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ."
Thank you my friend. As a sinner, a follower of Jesus Christ, and a Catholic, I appreciate your thoughtful words of support.
No, not in Scripture. There is not even one NT pastor who is even called a priest, apart from the general priesthood of all believers (hieráteuma) in the NT church, who are all called to sacrifice, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and grant forgiveness, (2Co. 2:6-10) while it is evident that the normative state of pastors was that of being married.
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:5-6)
And while being irrelevant to what is Scriptural (Catholic tradition typically testifies to declension from Scripture), Catholic history testifies that mandated clerical celibacy did indeed see dissent (see post 32 ).
In addition to being unScriptural the RC argument that mandated clerical celibacy (in which, except for rare exceptions for certain married priest converts, all priests must be married) is apostolic tradition is even opposed by Eastern Orthodoxy in which there are married and unmarried deacons and priests. "Most presbyters and deacons are married, while all bishops are celibate, save a few who are widowers." (Demetrios Constantelos, "Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy in the Orthodox Church") 'Most parish priests are married, but it is not unusual for celibate clergy and monastics to serve local churches." (https://www.goarch.org/-/the-sacramental-life-of-the-orthodox-church)
Orthodox priests must decide to marry (only once) before they are ordained, while it is from the unmarried priests that bishops are chosen (the NT church made no distinction btwn bishop and elder) and usually means they are monastics, “Hieromonks"). And, if a priest’s wife dies (or if a divorce is allowed), he can never remarry and remain a priest.
It is said that "Prior to Trent, the Catholic Church took the same approach to the question of priestly marriage as the Orthodox Church did (and does today)." https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/of-marriage-and-orthodox-priests
Faced with the clear Biblical testimony that the normative state of apostles and NT pastors was that of being married, some (such as Cardinal Stickler) resort to arguing that from the moment that married men were ordained they and their wives immediately became continent and lived as brother and sister.
Which is error begetting worse error, for Paul distinctly teaches that abstention from marital relations for holy purposes is to be temporary, and enjoins normal resumptions of such and that celibacy is a gift. (1 Co. 7:2,7) And Scripture nowhere testifies to celibate marriage, except in the case of the seriously infirm aged David and Abishag. (1Kg. 1:1-4) Requiring and expecting that married persons will maintain continence is both unScriptural and absurd presumption.
Also, Catholics attempt to justify their requirement of clerical celibacy by arguing that the Hebrew Scriptures (Leviticus 22:3-6) mandated that their Jewish priests refrain from intercourse before serving at the altar.. However, these priests not only served the altar in rotating shifts, after which conjugal relations could be resumed (as in Zacharias: Lk. 1:5ff), but while the text forbids any priest ministering in the holy things "having his uncleanness upon him," yet being married did not render one to be in a state of continual uncleanness; only that one was unclean regarding such until the evening, after marital relations or any discharge of semen, and then washing. (Lv. 15:16-18)
And contrary to Catholicism, the New Testament states that "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled : but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4) .
But since you dare to oppose Trent, you must be considered to have excommunicated yourself, and in any case Scripture enjoins that you go further and be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: with light and darkness. (2 Corinthians 6:14) And leave the RCC whose distinctives are unseen in the NT church of Scripture, and contrary to it .
Francis is hardly dictatorial, esp. in the light (darkness) of popes who were, while the problem for such dissidents as you is that you are acting contrary to such historical papal teaching as:
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Never said that it was. But there is no reason that the Church cannot restrict its candidates for the priesthood to those who have chosen celibacy, which was praised by both Jesus and Paul.
There is not even one NT pastor who is even called a priest, apart from the general priesthood of all believers (hieráteuma) in the NT church…
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning and etymology of the word priest:
Old English preset probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German presto, Old Frisian pressure, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.If you have an objection about its usage then you should object to its use to translate the Hebrew kohen and the Greek hiereus. Old English actually had a different word, sacerd, derived from the Latin sacerdos to translate these terms. Unfortunately, this has dropped out of English and thus forcing us to use the single term priest to translate two separate terms in Greek.
…it is evident that the normative state of pastors was that of being married.
The fact that Paul remained unmarried and called others to follow his example belies your private interpretation of Scripture.
Of course there is "reason," since instead of doing so or saying so, the only manner of pastorate manifest in the NT church (as well as in the OT) was one in which they were normally married, and which raising children well is presented as providing credentials for pastoral fitness.
Meanwhile celibacy is presented as a gift, and it is hardly tenable to require or presume all pastoral candidates must they gift, nor is there ever any pastoral requirement to be so. To restrict candidates for the pastorate to those who have chosen celibacy is therefore contrary to the NT church and Scripture (not that this is determinitive for Catholics). 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.
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning and etymology of the word priest: Old English preset probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German presto, Old Frisian pressure, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "etymology."
Etymologies are not definitions for etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, and does not define what they originally meant. For example, "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable).
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. "Priest" evolved from "presbyteros," if with uncertainty, with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers. (who nowhere are assigned a unique sacerdotal function).
If you have an objection about its usage then you should object to its use to translate the Hebrew kohen and the Greek hiereus. Old English actually had a different word, sacerd, derived from the Latin sacerdos to translate these terms. Unfortunately, this has dropped out of English and thus forcing us to use the single term priest to translate two separate terms in Greek.
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.
Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdos" (plural, "sacerdotes") for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros, and sacerdos has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which technicalities I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). An Orthodox historian scholar admits that "the word "priesthood" is itself a corruption of the Greek "presbyter." (John Anthony McGuckin, "The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture)
Of course, is Catholics would simply follow links posting this reproof would not be necessary.
The fact that Paul remained unmarried and called others to follow his example belies your private interpretation of Scripture.
Which is more sophistry, for the very example Paul provided was one who "manner was" to reasoned out of the scriptures with those who knew them, (Acts 17:2) and who wrote Scripture which teaches just the opposite of requiring clerical celibate!
Indeed, if "follow me" meant to be as him in every particular, so that (among other things) all were to be celibate as him, then Paul would be contradicting himself!
All of which is proof that Catholics did not change the Bible as Muslim assert, for they did a very poor job if they did. For the RC version would read something like,
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a priest , he desireth a good work. A priest then must be blameless, celibate, having no wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, apt to teach, fit to confect the Eucharist, not given to too much wine...One that will rule well his own house, having his spiritual children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own body, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 RC Timothy 3:2-5)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain priests in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, being no husband of any wife, that he may have faithful spiritual children not accused of riot or being unruly. (RC Titus 1:5-6)
For I would that all men were even as I myself, for every man hath this proper gift of God, especially to live after this manner as befits priests, and while the laity may be married. (RC 1 Corinthians 7:7)
For we have not power to leading about a sister, a wife, nor do the other apostles, nor the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (RC 1 Corinthians 9:5)
As usual, you haven’t a clue that you are spittling falsehoods in the name of Catholic truth.
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.