tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post2218571199098718478..comments2024-03-25T17:14:03.066-07:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Married priests, ritual purity, and priestly celibacyFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-79345549873259901992014-08-18T22:20:04.444-07:002014-08-18T22:20:04.444-07:00Zuzanna,
A diocesan priest does not take a vow of...Zuzanna,<br /><br />A diocesan priest does not take a vow of celibacy. He makes a promise to his bishop and to his bishop's successors to remain chase and obedient, however, he is paid a salary. Priests who are members of orders, e.g., a Franciscan or a Dominican, take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.<br /><br />This is devotional and not theological (and I am a theology student!), however, I believe that a priest who remains chaste draws the entire Church closer to God with him, just as a priest who breaks his promise - or vow - cannot, until he has atoned, draw the Church closer to God. However, I am aware that the purity of the one celebrating the Mass, consecrating the bread and wine, giving absolution, does not diminish the sacrament.Bellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953102014099188145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-58498288337883289422013-10-23T08:14:17.419-07:002013-10-23T08:14:17.419-07:00"If, however any would maintain"
as in ...."If, however any would maintain"<br />as in ... "If, however, anyone would maintain" ... indeed, there certainly are not "many" who would maintain the traditional discipline - but if there is anyone who would ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-32049957531543216662013-10-23T00:02:13.022-07:002013-10-23T00:02:13.022-07:00"If however, any would maintain the tradition..."If however, any would maintain the traditional discipline"<br /><br />Methinks this should read:<br /><br />"If, however, many"Paridellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13676922857827086562013-10-03T19:49:09.987-07:002013-10-03T19:49:09.987-07:00Fr. Erlenbush,
You might be interested to know th...Fr. Erlenbush,<br /><br />You might be interested to know that there is ongoing debate in the Russian Orthodox Church over the requirements for holy communion. A draft decree on the matter has been publicized to elicit comments from the public before the Russian Council of Bishops takes it up next year. Among other things the draft decree affirms the need for everyone -- married priest or lay - to abstain from sexual intercourse a day before communion, and affirms the temporary exclusion from communion of women who are menstruating. Strict fasting requirements are reaffirmed - fasting from midnight for everyone from the age of 3, before communion, and if communion is in the evening the fast is 6 hours. The concept of ritual purity is alive and well in the Orthodox East. <br /><br />- EasternerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-79663779165235496022013-10-01T07:30:15.412-07:002013-10-01T07:30:15.412-07:00Dear Stohn. The link you posted to has a passionat...Dear Stohn. The link you posted to has a passionately argued polemic that is nonethelesss less than fortrgiht<br /><br /><br />THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO<br />OFTEN CALLED<br />THE QUINISEXT COUNCIL<br />A.D. 692.<br />Elenchus.<br />Introductory Note.<br />The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.<br />Excursus to Canon VI., On the Marriage of the Clergy.<br /> <br /><br />INTRODUCTORY NOTE.<br />From the fact that the canons of the Council in Trullo are included in this volume of the Decrees and Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils it must not for an instant be supposed that it is intended thereby to affirm that these canons have any ecumenical authority, or that the council by which they were adopted can lay any claim to being ecumenical either in view of its constitution or of the subsequent treatment by the Church of its enactments.<br />It is true that it claimed at the time an ecumenical character, and styled itself such in several of its canons, it is true that in the mind of the Emperor Justinian II., who summoned it, it was intended to have been ecumenical. It is the that the Greeks at first declared it to be a continuation of the Sixth Synod and that by this name they frequently denominate and quote its canons. But it is also true that the West was not really represented at it at all (as we shall see presently); that when the Emperor afterwards sent the canons to the Pope to receive his signature, he absolutely refused to have anything to do with them; and it is further true that they were never practically observed by the West at all, and that even in the East their authority was rather theoretical than real.<br /><br /><br />http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.aspMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30706035774601987082013-09-25T09:55:52.996-07:002013-09-25T09:55:52.996-07:00''...if you take the "marriage" ...''...if you take the "marriage" analogy really strong ... saying that the priest is married to the Church and can have only one bride ... wouldn't this mean that the Church is married to the priest and can have only one husband?" No, because the priest is serving in the person of Christ, and it is Christ who is the only "husband" of the Church. Any other reading is superficial.Pam H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11203474273895032725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31108274182826320632013-09-24T12:03:45.553-07:002013-09-24T12:03:45.553-07:00It is ironic that many clergy are starting to argu...It is ironic that many clergy are starting to argue in favor of married priests as the Church has fewer and fewer priests but, as Fr. Cochini pointed out (p 250) <i>All the values connected with chastity are undermined....convents are emptying, nuns and monks are getting married (4th century)....All in all, this is not the progression of a movement in favor of continence but rather a protest against it.</i> <br /><br /><br />The more things seem to change...Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-11064837376355381042013-09-24T09:15:57.913-07:002013-09-24T09:15:57.913-07:00http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celiba...http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htmStohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05489726692106338380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78494385363074320042013-09-24T09:12:31.569-07:002013-09-24T09:12:31.569-07:00Dear Father. The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Cel...Dear Father. <i>The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy</i> by Christian Cochini, S.J. makes a convincing case that it was Luther who revived the arguments in favor of married priests and that a Theological Commission of Trent (17 members) thoroughly investigated the question unanimously agreed the ancient discipline must be maintained.<br /><br />Says Fr Cochini <i> Though they bear the mark of their time, these expositions of the theologinas at the Council of TRent remain valid today insofar as they review practically all the classical objections that have been formulated throughout history against ecclesiastical celibacy (and continence).</i><br /><br />I do not understand the desire to abandon this discipline unless a specific reason can be cited for man often forgets - or does not even know in the first place- rational reasons for ancient traditions.<br /><br />Of course, that our High Priest was continent and because Holy Writ witnesses that they left everything to follow Him (Matt 19:27) and because ecclesiastical tradition began with the Apostles, are all reasons enough not to change.<br /><br />And the conservative inclination is summarised in the pithy - If it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change<br /><br /><br />Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-35610397531058068592013-09-22T17:53:57.486-07:002013-09-22T17:53:57.486-07:00@Fr Selin,
It is a great document! I don't hav...@Fr Selin,<br />It is a great document! I don't have it in front of me (and cannot recall the details) ... but I seem to remember that the idea of continence being connected with the unius uxori vir was not yet established even in the early scholastics -- does the document not say that even in St Thomas' biblical commentary on that passage there is not yet a connection with celibacy and continence? Even if there is a sense of the priesthood having a marital meaning, it was not yet connected to continence?<br /><br />You probably remember it better than I! I do hope that readers will look to that document!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-20027507207824152082013-09-22T15:00:08.893-07:002013-09-22T15:00:08.893-07:00Father:
This is indeed an important topic, and I ...Father:<br /><br />This is indeed an important topic, and I thank you for your comments, as well as the important questions proposed by Harry. <br /><br />A good foundation for understanding the theological foundations for priestly celibacy and continence is provided in an essay written by Fr. Ignace de la Potterie, and which is found on the Vatican website: "The Biblical Foundations of Priestly Celibacy." After establishing some solid scriptural foundations, he then looks at some patristic sources. Of special interest is the patristic interpretation of "man of one wife" ('unius uxoris vir': 1 Tim 3:2). The Fathers discover an ecclesiologial-nuptial meaning for priestly celibacy-continence through this Scriptural passage.<br /><br />Most recently there has been a deepening of the Catholic theological understanding of priestly celibacy, mostly through the impetus of Paul VI in his magisterial "Sacerdotalis Caelibatus," wherein he broaches celibacy according to a threefold dimension: Christological, Ecclesiological, and Eschatological. It is an important teaching document, but has been all but forgotten, it seems.<br /><br />Thanks. Oremus pro invicem.<br /><br />Fr. Gary SelinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-49047978033496266882013-09-22T13:25:28.006-07:002013-09-22T13:25:28.006-07:00What exactly is "ritual impurity"?What exactly is "ritual impurity"?Marco da Vinhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092410765851812842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-70190574256699017392013-09-22T10:20:23.464-07:002013-09-22T10:20:23.464-07:00@Harry,
I will happily engage the topic further!
H...@Harry,<br />I will happily engage the topic further!<br />However, I will be in Rome for the next two weeks and unable to post articles ... so it will have to wait a while.<br /><br />I would note that those excellent sources you quoted give the theology of celibacy almost exclusively along the lines of ritual purity (at least, as I recall) -- especially Stickler.<br /><br />Peace and good! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-42458480851117788082013-09-22T06:48:47.959-07:002013-09-22T06:48:47.959-07:00Thank you, Fr., for delving into this topic. I ha...Thank you, Fr., for delving into this topic. I have been curious for a long time about the theological foundations of the ongoing juridical argument over clerical celibacy. The three modern authors recommended on the subject, Stickler, Cochini, and Heid, don't address it much, save for one enigmatic quote from Pope Damasus I in Cochini. Instead they strive to show the only the Apostolic origin and universality of the practice in the Church. Of course, they have many detractors. Dr. Peters restricts himself to the issues of Law in his many writings on the subject, and this discussion is the first time I have seen him discuss the theology of the issue at all. For those of us who follow this debate closely, this is bigger news than anything the Pope said this week. ;-) <br /><br />So, if it is possible, Fr., could you do a second post on this subject, and quote the sources of tradition you are alluding to? Those of us who are not patristics scholars would be grateful. Dr. Peters, could you please continue to engage the theological side of this issue here? I am interested to hear all of your opinion since, as you are more aware than anyone, most of your opponents on your sites and in other fora speak at cross purposes to you, making theological arguments against your legal ones. I'm really interested to know what you think about their theological arguments, even if they have nothing to do with the legal issue. <br /><br />Thanks! <br />Harryhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56302698508756320642013-09-21T21:10:08.307-07:002013-09-21T21:10:08.307-07:00@gsk,
As far as devotional thought goes, I am more...@gsk,<br />As far as devotional thought goes, I am more than happy to consider the idea of priest as bridegroom ... however, I just don't see that theology in the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.<br /><br />It is there for the bishop, but I don't see it for the priest.<br /><br />However, I will admit that, once we have celibacy, the idea of priest as married to the Church fits very well -- however, I don't see it as a particularly effective way of arguing to celibacy (since, after all, priests really can be married).<br /><br />This is another point -- women really cannot possibly be priests, but priests really can be married (even by dispensation, a priest could be married after ordination).Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-892832267124852452013-09-21T21:07:11.535-07:002013-09-21T21:07:11.535-07:00@Anon 12:40pm,
Please use a pseudonym, and I'd...@Anon 12:40pm,<br />Please use a pseudonym, and I'd be happy to respond.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-26867390691317988012013-09-21T14:34:03.510-07:002013-09-21T14:34:03.510-07:00Dear Father: I am surprised by your insistence tha...Dear Father: I am surprised by your insistence that priests are not married to the Church, for I understand that they all participate in the Priesthood of Christ, the Bridegroom. I speak widely (to women) and explain that this mystical dimension is an important reason why women cannot be priests, for to do so would attempt a same-sex union, which would be sterile. Rather, women are called to live as icons of the Bride in myriad ways depending on their state in life, their gifts, and their means. I think the nuptial backdrop to reality (properly understood) is quite important-- especially now, when androgyny and promiscuity are so much in vogue. gskhttp://feminine-genius.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-18440426687588637022013-09-21T12:40:26.261-07:002013-09-21T12:40:26.261-07:00Could you explain how celibacy is superior to the ...Could you explain how celibacy is superior to the married state when marriage is a sacrament and celibacy is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-87424787557284299712013-09-21T06:21:47.510-07:002013-09-21T06:21:47.510-07:00Hi Father! I recognize your respect for the legal ...Hi Father! I recognize your respect for the legal argument on continence. My point was a narrower one, simply to show that, as a matter of logic, your syllogism on the (lack of) need for continence did not persuade, so, my suggesting that another explanation might account for the law did not need to prove what that other explanation was, only that it might exist.<br /><br />I tread lightly as to what that other explanation for the law might be (for people are soooo ready to abandon law if THEY don't see why it's there, and my speculation on theo explanations might not persuade, and might interfere with folks' ability to follow my narration of the law), but, since you ask, I am thinking that the continence law has been there, all along, to protect the nuptial characteristics of priesthood/Mass. But I leave that to better minds than mine. <br /><br />Best, edp.Ed Petershttp://www.canonlaw.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-23613821667703468332013-09-20T20:23:29.626-07:002013-09-20T20:23:29.626-07:00@Ben,
I do not see how you move from the unicity o...@Ben,<br />I do not see how you move from the unicity of the Sacerdotium to the bishop and priest both being bridegroom ... certainly, St Thomas (who held unicity) did not hold that the priest was married to the Church (but only the bishop).<br /><br />I just don't see it in the tradition.<br /><br />However, that being said, I think that your argument is a fine devotional (and perhaps even theological) argument -- so long as we see it only as an argument leading to a certain fittingness and not to an absolute necessity.<br /><br />HOWEVER, my point is to say that we can (and should) defend celibacy, but not for the traditional grounds. <br />Thus, even following your reasoning, we set ritual purity aside.<br /><br />AND, if your argument is only a matter of what is fitting -- and it is certainly most fitting for a priest to be celibate -- then it still does not mandate continence for married priests.<br /><br />I myself hold that celibacy is fitting (from the superiority of Order), but I hold this to be only an argument to what is fitting.<br /><br />In any case, I do not mean to deny Ratzinger's points ... I only insist that the Bishop is Vicar of Christ to his diocese, and wed to his diocese, in a way that a priest is not (neither to the Church in general nor to his particular parish).<br /><br />Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-69655808390987123342013-09-20T20:00:39.399-07:002013-09-20T20:00:39.399-07:00Dear Father,
Ah, yes. This was a separate issue I...Dear Father,<br /><br />Ah, yes. This was a separate issue I was leaving aside. However, since you have taken it up, so will I. While there is no doubt that the Bishop is "wedded" to his one Diocese, he is so only inasmuch as he is making present the one Bridegroom. Similarly, the Diocese is a "Church" in a derivative sense, being a concrete instantiation of the one New Israel, the one community of salvation. When we say *the* Church, do we not mean something more than some sort of moral union of a group of local(ized) "Churches"? At least, I am well convinced by Ratzinger against Kasper that the one universal Church has both temporal and ontological priority. If you can agree with Ratzinger on this, then the fundamental ecclesiological vision that seems to stand behind your comments, as well as the theological conception of the unicity of the Sacerdotium, would seem to need modification. Finally (and I also mean this to be my last comment), if this line of argument is valid and cogent, which I reasonably believe it to be, then we would now be provided with at least one other good (other than ritual purity), and perhaps one more essential, that is obtained only through priestly continence: to wit, the robust understanding of the sacerdos (Bishop and Priest) as alter Christus and therefore as Bridegroom.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />BenBen of the Bayounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-26218519384954722242013-09-20T19:28:08.267-07:002013-09-20T19:28:08.267-07:00@Dr Peters,
I have not been able to find anything...@Dr Peters,<br /><br />I have not been able to find anything in the Fathers or Scholastics which links continence to anything other than ritual purity.<br /><br />While it is true that there is some concern for impure thoughts which may follow upon sexual relations (or the nocturnal emission), this is very clearly NOT the real concern of the theologians who always emphasize that the real problem is that the priests must handle sacred vessels and therefore must be ritually pure.<br /><br />St. Thomas (as a good example of the general tradition) states that priests must be celibate (and married priests continent) for the same reason that the priests wash their hands before Mass -- namely, ritual purity.<br /><br />Now, I certainly am greatly persuaded (as a personal opinion) by what you have written regarding the interpretation of the Law -- though I am no lawyer and really have no strong opinion on the legal question. <br /><br />HOWEVER, when it comes to your comment above, I would like you to actually give another reason for continence rather than simply stating "perhaps there is another reason" -- at least, if you are going to disagree with my theological point, you should do more than speculate that there could be some other possible theory (without even giving a hint as to what that other possible theory could possibly be).<br /><br />As I say, however, I do not disagree with your articles -- my question is theological, not legal.<br />AND I do thank you for your insightful work on this subject! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-41279304058107553612013-09-20T19:21:22.691-07:002013-09-20T19:21:22.691-07:00@Ben,
To the point -- many bishops being married t...@Ben,<br />To the point -- many bishops being married to the Church does not cause the problem of many bridegrooms... namely, the Bishop is not "married" to the Church generally, but to the Diocese.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-49005420218122725072013-09-20T18:15:50.645-07:002013-09-20T18:15:50.645-07:00Father Erlenbush,
Trying to respect the rules of ...Father Erlenbush,<br /><br />Trying to respect the rules of your blog, I will try to be brief. First, let me say thank you again for thoughtfully engaging the point. Second, may I say that (not surprisingly) Dr. Peters has made the point I was originally making and has done so more clearly. I thank him.<br /><br />Finally, ad rem. I do not accept that the Bishop receives a new character in his consecration, at least not what St. Thomas and Trent mean by character. Against an unnuanced reading of LG on this point, I point to the Nota Previa attached to Ch. 3, which explians the power received by the Bishop in a fundamentally different way than the power which depends on character. I do accept that the Bishop has a power which the priest does not. I do accept that the Bishop has the fulness of Holy Orders, but I distingush Holy Orders as sacrament and Orders as Office. The Bishop's fulness is in office, not in sacrament. If it were, it would be impossible to assert the unicity of the ministerial priesthood (i.e. the one priesthood of Christ made present by His sacramental configuration of the soul of the chosen instrument, a Catholic man). There being but one priesthood, there is one Priest and one Bridegroom, but who is made manifest in different supposita instrumentally. <br /><br />May I finsih by pointing out that your way of conceiving the priesthood would replace the offering of the Sacrifice as the primary power of the Sacramental configuration and, furthermore, that manner of construing Bishops would still end with the problem of having as many Bridegrooms as there are Bishops.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br /><br />Ben Ben of the Bayounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77939836957222103122013-09-20T15:29:44.876-07:002013-09-20T15:29:44.876-07:00"Indeed, if a married man can receive Communi..."Indeed, if a married man can receive Communion without observing a period of continence, there is no reason why a married priest could not offer the Mass."<br /><br />This claim is, as a matter of logic, true only if the ONLY reason for continence could be "ritual purity". What is another reason for the law on continence were adduced? What if, say, the priest's role in confecting the Eucharist were different than the layman's role in receiving it? Which, of course, it is. While I don;t have to prove a "reason" for a law in order to prove what a law requires, I am personally less persuaded that "ritual purity" is, in fact the best reason for c. 277, and that a better reason for the law lies elsewhere.Ed Petershttp://www.canonlaw.infonoreply@blogger.com