Although it has been seen primarily as a “pastoral” council, Vatican II had a dramatic impact on ordained ministry. It restored the permanent diaconate and it called on the Church to rethink the ministerial priesthood.
"With regard to the formation of priests (Optatem Totius), the Council called for a revamping of seminary formation.
The effects of this were nothing if not mixed and has provoked in many circles a variety of reactions.
In the early Church deacons were ordained to serve the Church under the local bishop. From Apostolic times, the Acts of the Apostles report, as the Church grew the ministries of oversight, preaching and presiding at the Eucharist, and what we would today call social work (caring for the poor) became too great for one person to perform alone. The Acts recounts how seven men were chosen and consecrated for social service. This was the origin of the order of deacons.
As the Church expanded, deacons became increasingly important; some even were elected popes in the first five centuries of Christendom. By the 20th century however, the permanent diaconate had disappeared—men chosen to share and assist the bishop in proclamation of the Word and celebration of the Sacraments (priests) were ordained deacons in transition to priesthood.
By the 1960s, once again, the shortage of ordained ministers in many parts of the world (notably Latin America) was acute. When the Council convened there arose a call from the Americas to find new ways to resolve the vocation crisis. One solution proposed, and accepted, was the restoration of the permanent diaconate.
Lumen Gentium (1964) kick-started—more accurately restarted—the diaconate. In paragraph 29 it stated that given the needs of the Church in many areas, “it will be possible in the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy”.
Within a few years of Vatican II the first permanent deacons—most of whom, as in the early Church, were married men—were ordained in Germany, Cameroon and the United States. Within a few decades married permanent deacons could be found throughout the Church, including South Africa.
Spurred on by the acceptance of married deacons, some bishops at the Council (mostly Latin Americans again, but with some African bishops concurring) called for the end to compulsory celibacy for diocesan priests ordained in the Latin Rite.
Pope Paul VI withdrew the issue from discussion however, saying that he would issue a statement on it later. In 1967 he ruled, despite growing calls for reform, that the obligation of celibacy should remain.
Celibacy remains in force despite ongoing calls for change and a small but steady number of departures of priests from active ministry in order to marry.
The issue of married priests, and subsequently the question of women’s ordination, remain neuralgic points in the Church. Where one stands on these issues has become almost a litmus test of orthodoxy.
For those priests seeking advancement they are subjects best ignored in conversation, least of all examined in print.
One priest, the Sri Lankan Fr Tissa Balasuriya OMI, was excommunicated in 1997 in part for his support for women’s ordination (it was rescinded a year later); and many South African Catholics believe that the late Archbishop Denis Hurley was never made a cardinal because he sympathised with both a married priesthood and women’s ordination.
Whatever one thinks of the latter issues, no matter where one’s sympathies fall, it would be a mistake nonetheless to think that Vatican II didn’t change the way the ministerial priesthood was understood. Two important documents, Optatem Totius and Presbyterorum Ordinis (both 1965) called for a new understanding of priestly formation and the priesthood itself.
With regard to the formation of priests (Optatem Totius) the Council called for a revamping of seminary formation. Seminarians should be properly formed in all areas of theology in a way that more adequately prepared them for ministry in an increasingly complex society.
Apart from doctrine they needed a far more solid grounding in Scripture, so that they could more effectively preach the Word to contemporary people.
They also needed a decent grounding outside theology in disciplines such as psychology and sociology, so that their future ministry would be more in touch with the real challenges faced by people to whom they ministered.
In Presbyterorum Ordinis the traditional understanding of priesthood was confronted, too, with the needs of a contemporary Church. The people of God needed priests who were more in touch with the lives they led. Priests, too, were understood to be in a more collaborative relationship with their bishop than before. A more apostolic rather than monastic-contemplative spirituality was envisioned.
As we know, the post-Vatican II period proved a hard time for priests. Many left, some because they could not face the more egalitarian tone of parish life: too much changed, too fast!
Others left because they expected far more change than materialised, including a relaxation of the discipline of celibacy.
Those who remained had to struggle between change on one hand (and often further expectations of change from laity and some priests) and movements of resistance and reaction on the other.
Wherever one stands on these reforms, and whether one is a priest or deacon who lived through the Council or a “John Paul II cleric”, for whom the Council is a page in history, the Council changed the face of ordained ministry.
Perhaps what we can all learn from it is the ongoing issues facing ministry (married priests, women’s ordination) should be addressed in a manner befitting the way the Council was run: civilly, openly, and with a spiritual generosity that presumes good intent on the part of all taking part in the debate.
The criterion that you put forward for discussion Father Eagan, ” Perhaps what we can all learn from it is the ongoing issues facing ministry (married priests, women’s ordination) should be addressed in a manner befitting the way the Council was run: civilly, openly, and with a spiritual generosity that presumes good intent on the part of all taking part in the debate.”
Has this not been done Father? If the answer were no, on all these issues would, those in favor of these changes accept that authority from the Magisterium.
The answer has been no as you well know, on all these issues, the question that is put to you Father, is at what point, will the no, be accepted, in obedience.
If an angel came down to you Father, and delivered the answer No to you, would you reject it, because your criterion was not met, so at what point will those asking for change accept the no.
You might have the idea depending on what side of the fence one is on, regarding these issues, determines the orthodoxy or liberality of the person. This has nothing to do with the issue, it is about trusting the Paraclete, and the visible structures that guides our Church, with the demeanor of humility, accepting the authoritative decisions.
My apologies on your name spelling, Father Egan.
@ Malcolm: You’ve made an excellent point Malcolm. When will the “no” be finally accepted if ever? And why must the argument continue ceaselessly, creating unnecessary conflict and division within the Church? Why can’t people just accept the Church’s decision and just carry on moving forward together in unity?
I think that a very good explanation for why people have difficulty accepting Church decisions on certain matters can be found in this article titled “Struggling with Church Doctrine? Go to confession!” http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=46833&wf=rsscol
“While there may be some such Catholics who might change their minds regarding abortion, or contraception, or infallibility if only the doctrines were better explained to them, most Catholics who disagree with these, and other, doctrines understand well enough why the Church teaches what it teaches, but they still refuse to accept them. So if they understand on an intellectual level the general reasons for a doctrine, why do some Catholics accept doctrine and others reject it? The answer is that the fundamental obstacle lies not with the intellect, but with the will.”
Exactly. Very well written. Thank you.
Thanks for the link Johnny, it made interesting reading. Hopefully, those who read Fr Egan,s post will make use of the link.
This post has prompted a re-read of what Christian Marriage is, why Priest do not Marry and the WHY, celibacy is the rule.
The rule on celibacy can be traced to the year 305, AD its roots way before this to the early Christian community to our Lord Jesus.
Its a tiresome request for those who have all the opportunity to consider the rule of celibacy in complete freedom, then before been ordained a deacon the Bishop gives the candidate a further opportunity.
In marriage in worldly affairs, God Our Father would be the center, our spouse, then our Children then broader family and friends, community.
Just on a practical basis, where married people are both working to sustain, educate their children, administering their home, health care and the various activities such as sport and other extramural activities that they are involved in.
Perhaps Father could explain how as a married priest, how is he going to achieve this?
Really, how can there not be a conflict of interest to what the duties of a Priest are. Common sense would dictate that this cannot be done, without re-construction of the entire function of what the Catholic Church is, what a Priest is, and his responsibilities to wife and children as to the community he wishes to serve.
As far as I know there are no, or few Priest, that are self sufficient.
These request by Father Egan is so weird, it tantamount to saying lets restructure the Catholic Church to current, popular secular image and our personal desires, regardless of the supernatural or Tradition. Notwithstanding this, all authoritative decisions on these issues are ignored, because of our criterion.
How many ways in 1700 years can the our Church say no, without Fr Egan finding one No, that is acceptable to his criterion?
Father you put this in the public domain, you must have considered the risk, your response would be welcomed.
.
Let us examine the Holy Writ, the Apostolic Tradition itself … and only then, let us consider getting into a hissy fit with Fr Anthony Egan!
The Holy Gospel according to St Matthew, 8:14-15 … “And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him.”
The Holy Gospel according to St Mark, 1:29-31 … “And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.”
The Holy Gospel according to St Luke, 4:38 “And he arose and left the synagogue and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they appealed to him on her behalf.”
First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, 9:1-6 … “[On: Paul’s Rights as an Apostle] Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [Saint Peter, "the first Pope"]? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?”
Interesting, that! “Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?” implies that the community is to provide for the Apostle AND his wife and children! So our Apostolic Tradition suggests that “where married people are both working to sustain, educate their children, administering their home, health care and the various activities such as sport and other extramural activities that they are involved in” … includes married Apostles (and so surely their successors too!) … i.e. working in the Lord’s vineyard is work that requires financial support by us, the People of God … or am I missing something?
It seems to work in the Orthodox Churches and in the Uniate Catholic Churches in communion with Rome … it is not an experiment in modernity, it is something which comes from our Apostolic Tradition … from the choice of Apostles exercised by the Incarnate Son of God … and so apparently from the Deposit of Faith itself … or am I missing something blindingly obvious?
Of course, there is ample room to maintain monastic priests, who are free to take a vow of celibacy IF they are so called … but to impose a mandatory celibacy on ALL priests seems to go against our Apostolic Tradition.
I’m sorry, but I just cannot resist stirring the pot … with what is so patently obvious to me …
Once upon a time, there was a modernist innovation … revisionism that amounted to a rupture with the Tradition, a Hermeneutic of Reform (or Discontinuity): It was decided that all Latin Rite priests would need to be celibate.
So does this imply that once upon a time there can be yet another modernist innovation … revisionism that will amount to a rupture with the Tradition, a Hermeneutic of Reform (or Discontinuity): When it will be decided that women can be ordained to the priesthood?
If one looked at the history of celibacy it would be true to say that in the first three hundred years of Christianity there was no Church Law on celibacy.
It would be wrong to say that celibacy was not widely practiced before the advent of Christianity.
The early Christians were mostly Jewish. There were many Jews who lived devout and celibate lives at the time of Jesus. John the Baptist was one, and we are all, well aware of the respect and reverence he was given by those who followed him and came to be baptized by him.
Many of John’s followers went with Jesus.
Jesus was celibate, St John the evangelist, St Paul and possibly many other disciples were celibate.
It would be quite surprising if His ardent disciples did not follow the example of Him, whom they believed in.
Although there was no law forbidding the married state in the first 300 years, celibacy was practiced and there were, stipulations of self control concerning the married state with regards to priest and bishops. Here it is in Scripture, which is part of Church Tradition.
This is from the Douay-Rheims Bible with commentary
Tim 3:2. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
Oportet ergo episcopum inreprehensibilem esse unius uxoris virum sobrium prudentem ornatum hospitalem doctorem
Of one wife…. The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.
Titus 1:6. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly.
What is the motivation of celibacy, at this early stage of Christianity? Jesus was borne of a virgin mother; His foster father Joseph was celibate. Jesus was celibate.
So the example of celibacy was set right from the beginning and gained in voluntary acceptance rapidly for the first three hundred years.
How is this known, well the Christian lawyer and theologian Tertullian writes in the year 200 AD. A woman, whose husband had died, asks him the question if she should marry again. He points to priest in this matter.
On Exhortation to Chastity Chapter 13
“How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact.”
So it is clear that the model of celibacy was set and widely practiced in the first three centuries although there was no law forbidding marriage to the priesthood save certain stipulations.
The first law to appear is at the Council of Elvira in 305 AD, Cannon 33
“ Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.”
This law did not appear without foundation, now we can travel through the historical facts up to the present and we can see that celibacy was practiced from day one; the first law is in 305. There is no vagueness on the issue,.
The fact that the laws of our Church is not practice by the few, and at certain points in history by a fluctuation margin, is not a reason to do away with them. It is a ridicules notion that would paint such picture.
There are spiritual and practical reasons why celibacy is to be treasured. One only has to read what Jesus has to say on the matter or St Paul or the various pontiffs through the centuries.
Dear Malcolm,
“One only has to read what Jesus has to say on the matter” … I would very much like to read what Jesus had to say on the matter … could you please point me in the right direction?
I mean no disrespect, but I think that you have missed my point completely. My point being that Jesus chose some Apostles who were married … so how can you argue that celibacy was such a /sine qua non/ for Jesus?
As St Paul said: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [Saint Peter, "the first Pope"]?”
How do you rationalize that, Malcolm? It is none less than the (unambiguous) APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
Perhaps Jesus remained celibate because he knew he would be killed at a young age, and desired to spare a wife and children the associated suffering? Who knows! I certainly don’t!
Hi Vincent
Matthew 19:12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Sunt enim eunuchi qui de matris utero sic nati sunt et sunt eunuchi qui facti sunt ab hominibus et sunt eunuchi qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum caelorum qui potest capere capiat
There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven… This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shows. 1 Corinthians 7:37-38.
Students for the priesthood have a generous amount of time in complete freedom to make their choice.
By the way I was not responding to anything you wrote prior to your last input. However as you know I live in Cape Town, I know the area well, there are gang infested areas where communities live in terror.
Practically, a married priest a wife and children in those areas, would never survive, where will his children go to school, is he going to work, his wife work? What will happen to children? And how is going to function as a priest a worker, a husband, a father to his children that most fathers would spend most their free time being a friend and philosopher to? Are you saying Vincent that there is no conflict of interest to the broader community the priest has to serve?
I have been in those areas, I will never take my wife or children there and in-danger their lives, even during the day.
A priest friend happened to be in one of these gang infested areas. Subsequent to him being at that parish a priest lost his life violently. Happened to visit him at his parish and he related that most evenings there are volleys of gunfire.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for our clergy who have sacrificed everything, for our lord work. Clearly celibacy for the higher spiritual motives is praiseworthy, it is a discipline by the Church that falls into tradition.
There is a practical side to this issue which are valid points however the spiritual and the laws of the Church take precedent.
Cannot help thinking that when one is in the married life, how awful life would be if one were not sure if one had done the right thing and spent the rest of ones life in quandary, instead of respecting ones decision and getting on with things.
Clerical celibacy has been normative in the Latin Rite for centuries. Apart from the recent acceptance of married former Anglican clergy, parish priests in some of our Eastern Rites have been permitted to marry, but not, as in Orthodoxy, bishops. There are precedents therefore for married clergy dating back to the time of the apostle, however treasured celibacy has become in the West. This question is in a entirely different category, however, from that of the ordination of women to the priesthood. There is no precedent whatsoever for this, notwithstanding persistent but wholly unconvincing attempts by John Wijngaards and other dissenters to present “early deaconesses” as such.
My surname says it all: it means “priest” in Arabic (Lebanese). I bear that particular surname because one of my fairly recent ancestors (say within the last 10 generations or so) was the village priest in a Lebanese village whose Christianity dates back to about 32AD. In fact, the village’s tradition holds that Jesus, His mother, and St John regularly passed through that village, and a grotto outside the village has been venerated since at least the 6th century as the resting place. (Indeed, it is possible that the Sumarian woman at the well whom Jesus spoke to might have been an ancestor aunt of mine :-). )
In rites such as the Melchite (my own particular ancestry), the Maronite (dating back to St Maroon in the 3rd Century), there is no notion that celibacy is necessary or desirable for the priesthood. Celibacy is indeed required for the episcopate, principally to prevent the office being used as a means of accumulating vast tracts of family land that is passed on from generation to generation.
Having the priesthood reserved for celibates is not the norm in the Christian or Catholic Church. It is an oddity of the Roman part of the Catholic Church of relatively recent origin. Most of Christianity is more balanced and has followed the advice of St Paul who, although he wished that all could be celibate like him, definitively said “It is better to marry than to burn of desire.” (1 Corinthians 7).
There is much more in the Roman part of the Catholic Church that has departed from the roots of early Christianity, and from centuries of tradition. Most of this departure has to do with a centralisation of power and authority of every type (teaching, liturgical, administrative, appointment) in the Vatican.
Fr Egan says “One priest, the Sri Lankan Fr Tissa Balasuriya OMI, was excommunicated in 1997 in part for his support for women’s ordination (it was rescinded a year later)”
Well what are we dealing with here. Is it the errors of Rome or the errors of Fr Tissa Balasuriya ?
One small observation about the Melchite and Maronite rites: their growth has not been as important as that of the Roman Church,latin rite. They are based in the Middle East, with communities in some countries, following the exodus of these communities to the New World and Europe and elsewhere.
Whereas the Latin Church spread all over the world, built schools and hospitals and orphanages. It has left its indelible mark on the world, its churches can be seen everywhere. The missionaries, having no wives and children, and having dedicated their time on earth to help save souls, were able, willing, to leave a cosy (perhaps) life behind to cross the oceans and establish the Church in pagan countries. Many, many were martyred, many died of diseases in the tropical, equatorial countries, in the Canadian Far North, in Africa, everywhere.
One would also note that the Orthodox church did not spread as wide as the Roman Catholic Church.
Is this a co-incidence ?
It would be interesting( I admit that I have not researched the subject) to find out how many of those priests in the Middle Eastern rites have taken advantage of the possibility of getting married, how many are not married, how many are divorced, and how do they balance their life between the altar, the confessional, the daily prayers and sick visiting, with married life and children, education of these children, financial. earthly worries about their future, their medical care.
In my view, the Latin version of the priest is superior simply because they have more time for the souls to be saved. The priests I know are perfectly balanced men, radiating with happiness, dedicated to their vocation, freely accepted that are to remain celibate, and lead an examplary life. They wear their cassock at all times, are recognized everywhere as priests, are approached by strangers who ask for blessings etc etc…( of course, in some vehemently anti-clerical countries, where laicity reigns supreme, France for instance, they also have their share of insults
from stangers. That does not affect them the least. They are strong men, I know what I am talking about).
The priests are bonded(freely, it goes without saying) to the Priesthood, to our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal High Priest, under the care and protection of our Lady in Heaven, have no material worries like us ‘ in the world’. The priests I know are taken care of by their flock, in return, they give the very best of themselves by giving the good sacraments, offering the mass which has proved itself over the centuries.
The moment the Holy Church allows in the fullest sense those who want to live “the experience of Tradition” to do so, one would see the spectacular miracle which would happen. The renewal, the re-birth, the springtime of the Church would come again. This restoration has already started and is irreversible, but of course the good Pope needs our help, our support, the Bishops need to fully implement the Motu Proprio and obey the Pope. The Holy Church not being a democracy, slowly all the errors which have poisoned the Church will be eliminated, and the Pope will govern the Church of Jesus Christ, aided by his Bishops and priests it goes without saying. For those who may not know, it is precisely democracy which was introduced in and after the council. The ‘embracing’ of the world was a disaster. Honesty is required to recognize this fact.;
A tree is judged by its fruits.
O lord, give us many, holy priests, and religious vocations.
St Michael, protect the Church.
St Pius X, pray for us.
Peter says in Matt 19:27. Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?
Jesus says in Matt 19:29. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.
Logically, Peter could not say in truth “all things” if his wife were not included.
There is no evidence from Scripture that any of the Apostles were married save Peter.
Well the Saint Jerome is also a product of the East says “Bishops, Priest and Deacons are chosen from virgins or widows, or at least they remain perpetually chaste after being elevated to the priesthood”
The oddity is moving south.
Correction : delete “NOT” please…………….. if his wife were not included.
In other words Peter must have lived a Chaste life at that point, Just to make sure that there is no other interpretation to this.
Matt 8:14. And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying, and sick of a fever;
Et cum venisset Iesus in domum Petri vidit socrum eius iacentem et febricitantem
8:15. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered to them.
Et tetigit manum eius et dimisit eam febris et surrexit et ministrabat eis
Having a good read of this verse, the question is where is Peter’s wife in this verse? If she is there, why does she not serve them, the above verse says about Peter’s mother in-law: “and she arose and ministered to them” Is it possible that Peter’s wife is no longer living?
So when the primacy is conferred on Peter there is no proof that his wife is alive.
So there is no scriptural proof that any apostle, had a living wife, at Pentecost.
@PRM: You raise in interesting point about the relatively low level of missionary activity carried out by married clergy. One has to admit that they are not as mobile, and therefore have not really traveled around as much as the celibate priests did in later voyages of discovery, etc. However, it cannot be denied that they have fulfilled a very valuable role in consolidating the faith within “converted” regions. Moreover, those with roots in the non-Roman rites of the church who have emigrated into regions controlled by the Roman rite, have typically integrated into the Roman communities and become key members of those communities.
But, as I understand things, the debate is not about whether or not a celibate priesthood is a good or bad thing. The debate, as I understand it, is rather about whether or not the priesthood should be opened up to a married clergy as well. And, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no theological problem about this and it is in line with traditional practice from Jesus’ time right up until the present. The Catholic Church is not coincident with the Roman Catholic Church. It remains a Roman rite obsession of recent times to limit the clergy to celibate males only, and I think that the distortions brought about by this has been obvious for all to see.
As for your speculation about how the married clergy in the eastern rites function: my impression is that there has been very very little “scandal” in terms of such things as divorce; and that the priest and his family would be fully integerated into the life of a given village community. I do not pretend that married clergy is a panacea. I do think that the church should be much more open to accommodating those who have intended to remain celibate, but fall in love. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. St Paul wisely anticipates that possibility and says “it is better to marry than to burn of desire” but Rome stubbornly refuses to accommodate such people within its clerical structures. It has lost many thousands of good men because of this.
@ Derrick, yes I think understand your line of thought. In your last paragraph:” those who have intended to remain celibate, but fall in love”. I do not know whether you refer to priests who after their ordination fall in love or to those not yet ordained who also fall in love(and obviously want to be married and priest).
You see, once the rule is broken, once a precedent is created, then how on earth can one say to the other priests that they cannot think of the (remote?) possibility that they might fall in love. Once they know that they can argue their case, that maybe, perhaps, eventually, they could be both(married and priest), then the ‘rot’ sets in….we are a slippery path…then slowly everything/anything can be explained, promoted….So easy. That is the strength of modernism ! It can explain anything, with great logic…And that’s where we should be most careful and expose modernism for what it is : the collector of heresies, so many bright people fall victim to modernism.
We come back to the vocations, the seminary life, the ordinations, and the future life as a priest.
I had two uncles, my father’s brothers, who were priests and ordained well before the council. They were example of charity and one could not find better men, so humble as well. These are the men who have influenced me. These issues never concerned them(and most of the many thousands of priests of their generation), they were married to the Church, to their priesthood, and they were balanced, happy men. They were sure of their vocation. Even though both remained with the conciliar teachings.
That situation has worked very well for centuries. The seminaries should therefore be very strict and only take those candidates who are certain of their vocation( of course there will be some who leave the seminary after a year or two). Even in traditional seminaries, some may leave after a while if they are not sure. But generally, those men ordained in the traditional seminaries are men who will be priests for life. They are good priests. One can trust them.
If one cannot be a good priest, one should not be a priest at all. Once a man has understood fully what is a priest, who is a priest(another High Priest at the altar), then he has all the good chances of making it through life and he does not need a wife and children to keep him company and to love. He has a greater love, a far more noble love which he gives to our Lord Jesus Christ. A priest is several degrees above the rest of us because of what he does at the Altar of Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Calvary.
We do not forget that the Church has the accumulated wisdom of 2000 years behind her. We look at a tree and look at the fruits. Those who marry should then be model husbands, model fathers, model catholics, and they would have enough to deal with as married men without adding the heavy resposibility of being a Catholic Priest, in charge of souls, be on stand-by day and night, pray his breviary daily, say his mass daily (no matter what, even when he is on holiday and travelling). How could he possibly be both ? I cannot see it.
Have a great Sunday. I salute your guardian angel.
The statement “Peter must have lived a Chaste life at that point” is quite extraordinary, since I believe, Malcolm, that you mean by this that he abstained from sex from this moment on.
I am afraid that you seem to have completely missed the meaning of the word “chastity” … it is quite possible to be married, to have sexual relations, and to remain quite perfectly chaste!
Chastity and celibacy are quite different issues … one can be celibate, but most unchaste! “If you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you have committed adultery” and all that!
St Paul is quite clear on the “rights” of Apostles: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [Saint Peter, "the first Pope"]?”
Leaving everything behind probably refers to material things … but clearly not to one’s wife!
1 Timothy 3:1-5
“The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?”
Now that is a good point … “if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?”
Titus 1:5-7
“For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid … “
Polycrates of Ephesus, an early Bishop in Ephesus, wrote “Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus … “
Hippolytus , a 3rd century Roman, writes … “About the time of this man, bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been twice married, and thrice married, began to be allowed to retain their place among the clergy … “
As I pointed out earlier, there was (what can only be described, at the time,) a “modern innovation” in the Latin Rite … a radical departure from the Apostolic Tradition, a hermeneutic of “rupture” or “reform” … a brand new rule enforcing celibacy on ALL Latin Rite priests.
Now that this has become “the norm” in the Latin Rite (certainly not the norm in the Church) … we have Donal talking of “precedents” for married clergy! The precedent was and remains the canonical rule enforcing clerical celibacy on all priests! The Apostolic Tradition remains the Apostolic Tradition … in spite of modernist reform.
I have no problem with reform, with the setting of precedents, with an organic evolution as insights deepen.
But for those who vociferously claim to hold fast to Tradition … who actually define themselves as Traditionalists with a capital “T” … to enter into a blase modernist reformulation of the authentic Tradition hailing from the Apostles – well, that’s just too rich for me to keep down …
The difference between the two situations is that the first one took place over a very long time(centuries?) and the second took place almost immediately. Straight after the council, i.e. 1966 onwards, a brand-new mass, heavily protestantized, created a turmoil among the faithful. Practically from one day to the other, we were told that a new mass was created by Mgr Hannibale Bugnini and that on a certain date, that was it. The Catholic Church was enforcing the practical prohibition of the mass of all time (M.O.A.T.) in favour of the mass of Paul VI, the novus ordo missae(N.O.M.), the creation of Mgr Bugnini. Catholics : swallow the medicine, it’s good for you, do not ask any question, obey, as all good Catholics do: they obeyed…
The hermeneutic of rupture : it is debatable. We can see the ‘innovations’ introduced immediately, brutally, while the anaesthetic(of the council) was still working… New mass, new liturgy, new catechism, dropping of the cassock and veil, That feeling of freedom, that exhiliration of innovation, change, revolution. Catholics swallowed everything line, hook, sinker, and many seem to be enjoying it. Besides the Church had embraced the world, deliberately, coldly, and it was a union against nature, ALWAYS presented to us as “adapting to a new situation”. But all this is history, we know now that the Revolution is being stemmed.
Yes, indeed traditionalists are the main architects of the Restoration of the Faith in the world. There were many priests who died of sorrow when, helpless, they saw the near annihilation of the M.O.A.T. However, Providence saw to it that a single courageous prelate stood up after the council to save the Priesthood and the M.O.A.T, aided and guided by the Holy Spirit. The M.O.A.T has indeed been the moat around the Holy Church and that moat was there to protect the Church. Maybe the progressives thought that a moat belonged to the middle ages castles…and in their mind had to go with the castles etc…( skyscrapers do not require a moat, do they?)They would have been logical with themselves. Remember: a modernist can answer any question, can explain anything. They also have a peculiar logic. Most of them like the tail wind on earth and enjoy belonging to a tail wind church.
There is no tail wind on this earth, no, we will have it when we reach Heaven.
Ad astra per ardua.
Please, Vincent, therefore your interpretation is of the same value.
These texts are not accurate Cor 9.5
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” -New American Bible
“Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”–New American Bible 1970
“Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” – New American Standard Bible
“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” – Revised Standard Version
“For have we not the power of leading about women, like the other apostles and Cephas?” – Tertullian’s Rendering in “De Monogamy”
μη ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν αδελφην γυναικα περιαγειν ως και οι λοιποι αποστολοι και οι αδελφοι του κυριου και κηφας — The actual Greek text
And here is the correct translation and commentary
Douay Rhiems 1Cor 9:5. Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?
Numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas
A woman, a sister… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (1 Corinthians 7:7-8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries.
This is a good interpretation to the rest
“For have we not the power of leading about women, like the other apostles and Cephas?” – Tertullian’s Rendering in “De Monogamy”
P.R.Margeot
Your points as to Missionary work Catholic as opposed to to the E Orthodox as to spreading the Gospel as to the injunctions given to the Apostles by Jesus are extremely valid points.
The Holy Family set the model, there is voluntary acceptance of celibacy by many, that acceptance gains in tne first 300 centuries, then in 305 AD the first law regarding celibacy.
The evidence is clear, popular demand.
We live in a world where today where there are those who do not want to give up all, to follow C
Jesus says in
Matt 19:29. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.
St Epiphanius says Haeres 59,c. 4
“he who leads a married life is not admitted by the Church to order of Deacon, Priest, Bishop or sub-deacon”
The fact that some do not obey a law is not reason to do away with a law.
Derrick says celibacy is an oddity of the West. Clearly he is wrong. What does he say of Jesus and the various saints??????
Vincent supplies text, that are plainly in error to support his arguments. Really……
This Church we can trust.
Dear Malcolm,
Thank you for the lesson in Koine Greek.
Might I be so bold as to point out that “γυναικα” can translate as “wife” as well as “woman”?
This translation is no corruption … indeed, it is talking about the rights of Apostles, and not about whether St Paul himself had a wife!
Now it should take little reminding that we have recently had a major translation brouhaha in the English-speaking component of the Church. In fact, our Missals now have the NRSV translation, the Jerusalem Bible translation having been unceremoniously chucked out for being too “dynamic equivalence” and not enough “formal [literal] equivalence”.
A scholar none less that our Wilfrid Fox Cardinal Napier recently wrote a letter to the Editor on this issue, questioning “those who are questioning the decision of the Holy See to opt for the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible rather than the earlier 1952 edition or the New Revised Standard Version.” [See http://www.scross.co.za/2012/04/bible-debate-rsv-versus-nrsv/ .]
I would like to point out both the RSV and the NRSV [formal equivalence?] translations of 1 Cor 9:5 …
RSV: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”
NRSV: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”
Malcolm, are you really suggesting that the Holy See has opted for a translation that is “corrupt”?
PS why so quiet on 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1? Don’t they strengthen the case to translate “γυναικα” as wife?
Oops … the Missals now have the RSV translation! ;-)
No one is disputing the fact that Peter was married, what is not clear is, was Peters wife living at the time of his Primacy, or what the situation was?
What you stated has already been pointed out Vincent so you are welcome to state it again.
“A woman, a sister… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (1 Corinthians 7:7-8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries.”.
State your point Vincent, on 1 Timothy 3:1-5, and Titus 1:5-7. We wait with baited breath, dear Vincent.
Hi Vincent, Tertullian Ch8 On Monogamy
Peter alone do I find—through (the mention of) his “mother-in-law”,—to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists. The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name—however, there is a name proper to wives—shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, “For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?” But when he subjoins those (expressions) which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, “For have we not the power of eating and drinking?” he does not demonstrate that “wives” were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply “women,” who used to minister to them in the same way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.
For your edification dear Vincent
Thank you for all your efforts, sweet pea. It is all so very intriguing, and you’ve prompted me to scratch around a bit to see what modern scholarship has to say … here’s what I have found …
I have had a look at my Catholic Bibles … those with an Imprimatur and with a Nihil Obstat (i.e. containing a declaration that a book is considered free from doctrinal or moral error). Both the New Jerusalem Bible and the African Bible (using the text of the New American Bible) also translate 1 Cor 9:5 to be referring to a Christian wife. In fact, no modern English translation yields “a woman, a sister” … and the footnotes to the African Bible (a Bible presented to Pope John Paul II in 2000 by the chairman of the Biblical Centre for Africa, Archbishop Robert Sarah) explain why, alluding to the error in the interpretation of the Church Fathers!
“αδελφην” = a sister (in the sense of a Christian woman, a fellow member of the Church, a female missionary assistant … as in as Rom 16:1 [Phoebe is a sister ... "ἀδελφὴν," et cetera]; 1 Cor 7:15; Jam 2:15.), so “γυναικα” as “woman” is rendered utterly redundant! “γυναικα” can only be meant in apposition to “αδελφην,” making it necessarily translate as wife!
All modern scholarship appears to have converged into agreement on this point, and all modern translations (Catholic and otherwise) reflect this consensus. The list of Catholic scholars who have contributed to the editorial effort in our modern Catholic translations is breathtaking … and to claim that they are ALL “erroneous translators” takes some gall!
And so, Malcolm, you appear to be a lone wolf, relying on the demonstrably erroneous earlier scholarship of Church Fathers and other translators.
QED
Thank you Vincent, but the issue you raise is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
To me, it is irrelevant if St Peter or all the Apostles were married or not. This is not the issue.
Some would have us believe, that celibacy is a recent unjust law, imposed, by the Church, lacking in fairness, without reason.
Well it is clear that celibacy was practiced since the early days, Scripture does not forbid it, but in fact leans in favor of it.
The arguments for it, reside in that fact, that Jesus makes stipulations for those who wish to follow him. St Paul gives the reason why, and the fact that it was practice by the many, whom voluntary from day one, followed His example. It is evident that celibacy gained in favor by the time of the first law.
With the accumulation of evidence it is reasonable that the first laws regarding celibacy, in 305AD were put in place.
Those who cannot take it are not forced to do so.
There is nothing unreasonable about this.
The arguments against Celibacy are spurious and not convincing at all.
My objections to the above post are the blatant negativeness of content, without any evidence to support the various allegations.
I do wish Fr Egan well; although I do not support his views at all, on the issues he raises or alludes to.
This was not a debate; it was shocking that one could say that celibacy is, “an oddity of the Roman part of the Catholic Church of relatively recent origin.” This is not true at all.
Another touts scriptural verse’s that are irrelevant to the issue at hand, Celibacy is not a divine law but a Church law.
In Matt 18:18 Jesus gives the Apostles the power to legislate, In Matt 18:17 Jesus give the power to discipline, this is the central issue which is been challenged.
Through Succession, that power remains. The Church makes laws, and they need to be respected by all.
Fr. Egan is always read with great interest in the S.C. Some do not quite agree with him, it is normal. Would it be impertinent of me to ask him something ? Considering that he is a Priest and is well-known in Southern Africa, could he tell us whether he has ever said the Tridentine mass, and what does he think of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. I thank him beforehand.
( I know that many if not most writers never comment on comments to their writings ! Some, as a commentator here wrote once, are ‘blissfully unaware’ of the reactions. But surely Fr Egan reads everything !!)
Ho-hum, Malcolm…there you go again. You say: “it was shocking that one could say that celibacy is, “an oddity of the Roman part of the Catholic Church of relatively recent origin.” This is not true at all.” Once more, you’re misrepresenting what I have said.
What I actually said is: “Having the priesthood reserved for celibates is not the norm in the Christian or Catholic Church. It is an oddity of the Roman part of the Catholic Church of relatively recent origin. ”
“It” obviously refers to the the reservation of the priesthood for celibates. No one claimed that celibacy is an oddity; the reservation of the priesthood for celibates only is an oddity. In fact, elsewhere, I explicitly say:
“… the debate is not about whether or not a celibate priesthood is a good or bad thing. The debate, as I understand it, is rather about whether or not the priesthood should be opened up to a married clergy as well. ”
You go on to say that “The Church makes laws, and they need to be respected by all.”
There is nothing disrespectful about discussing married clergy. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Ratzinger himself spoke of the need to reconsider the issue shortly before he became pope. And the good people in the Johannesburg parish of Bryanston (was it?) produced a document a couple of years ago, indicating how married clergy could alleviate the shortage of priests. They were not disrespectful—merely concerned Catholics looking to what they consider to be best for the Church. Remember Chesterton: “Love is not blind, love is bound. And the more bound it is, the less blind it is.”
Derrick, Thank you for the quote from the great GK, and of course you know the first fruit of charity is TRUTH. GK understood this well.
Priestly celibacy in patristics and in
the history of the Church
Roman Cholij
Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in
Great Britain
It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.
In the patristic era, clerical celibacy, strictly speaking meant the inability to enter marriage once a higher Order had been received. The first legislative expression of this is found in the eastern councils of Ancyra (314), c. 10, and Neocaesarea (ca. 314-325), c. 1, for deacons and priests respectively. An Armenian collection of canons, probably from 365, includes this prohibition of marriage2 and it is clearly expressed in the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Canons of the late fourth century.3 Canon 14 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) likewise endorses this discipline (albeit indirectly), and it is found in other documents of the fifth and subsequent centuries which consider the practice to be an ancient and timeless tradition.4
At first sight this insistence, with its serious canonical penalties, on the law of what would eventually be called the «impediment of orders to contracting marriage» is curious for its apparent lack of scriptural foundation. At best there is the injunction from the Pastoral epistles, «man of one wife» (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6), which would prohibit only a widower cleric from remarrying, but in actual fact this was generally interpreted by patristic authorities as being a prohibition of ordaining remarried laymen.5 Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrrhus stand apart, however, in that they do attest to a different tradition of interpretation. St Paul, according to them, was concerned only with marital fidelity and not with a prohibition of ordaining the remarried.6 Nonetheless, the tendency was to understand strict monogamy as being, together with other qualities
During the first four centuries, married priests would renounce having intimate relationships with their wives, but they needed their the approval of their spouse.
Prof. Stefan Heid
Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology
“Abstinence wasn’t only for single priests, it was also for those who were married. Married priest who were from the time of the early Church until the Middle Ages, refrained from having relations with their wives. They were only able become priests if their wife agreed.”
Prof. Laurent Touze
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross
“During the time of the early Church all priests, deacons and bishops had to practice celibacy from the minute they were ordained.”
Then, towards the end of the IV century, Pope Siricius stressed the importance of celibacy in order to maintain continuity with the practice of earlier centuries.
The conference at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross made it clear that full continence of both single and married priests was a spontaneous imitation of Christ rather than a requirement.
Just as Jesus chose celibacy giving up a family in order to give himself to mankind, priests are called by God to imitate Jessus. In fact, the priest is able to better serve all people because he is more available.
Msgr. Angelo Amato
Prefect of the Congregation of the Causes of Saints
“Jesus was chaste, virgin, celibate and he defended it. His virginity distanced him from others, but it’s what made him able to show, compassion and forgiveness to others.”
Prof. Laurent Touze
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross
“Celibacy, as Christ demonstrated by giving himself on the cross is a precious gift. The priest is dedicated to the whole Church, especially those who entrusted him.”
Since celibacy has never been easy, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, recalled the importance of carefully training priests so they live celibacy meaningfully with joy.
PVB
DC
-WP -