Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider ask for prayer and fasting

[godisgood77]

The Synod though apparently has no authority to be making a decision for the Church.

Correct, the synod does not have authority. A synod has no binding authority. The Pope and the Church do. The synod may come to the conclusion that married priests are necessary… and the Church may implement those recommendations. And there would be nothing wrong with that

 

[Fauken]

Correct, the synod does not have authority. A synod has not binding authority. The Pope and the Church do. The synod may come to the conclusion that married priests are necessary… and the Church may implement those recommendations. And there would be nothing wrong with that

The Pope already told them to not go through with the Synod. Why would he implement the suggestions of Cardinals who fly in the face of his authority?

Spoiler

Heh heh, pun. Flying Cardinals.

 

[CRV]

The true history of celibacy Fr Jerome Bertram 18 August, 2016

 

[jack63]

…and this is fine interpretation, but the point is the model of married priests is deeply Biblical. It’s not just tradition.

Celibacy is superior in that it is a sacrifice of the good that is marriage for the greater good of a life completely dedicated to God (see CCC 2349), something which St. Paul noted.

As for this statement…

1. CCC 2349 says absolutely nothing about the superiority of celibacy.
2. Jesus teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12) ends with Jesus saying that those able to accept marriage ought to. To say celibacy is superior in the context of the teachings of Jesus is something I would say is completely wrong.
3. Even St. Paul put his ideas about celibacy in context. Everybody references 1 Corinthians to justify celibacy. I wish they’d read the entire thing… Specifically, starting from 1 Corinthians 7:25. The entire teaching is put in the context of what they say as their end times…or the destruction of the temple.

Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. (1 Corinthians 7:25)

 

[CRV]

Luke 18:26-30
" 26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” 28 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”"

 

[Fauken]

…and this is fine interpretation, but the point is the model of married priests is deeply Biblical. It’s not just tradition.

When did I say it wasn’t Biblical?

CCC 2349 says absolutely nothing about the superiority of celibacy.

I should have been more specific on why I quoted CCC 2349. It wasn’t to prove the superiority of celibacy. It was because it started “Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner”, linking it to when I said it allows the priest to live a life completely dedicated to God.

Jesus teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12) ends with Jesus saying that those able to accept marriage ought to. To say celibacy is superior in the context of the teachings of Jesus is something I would say is completely wrong.

More like if they must. Not all are called to celibacy, yes. But the superiority of celibacy for the kingdom is a teaching that has its roots in the Bible and tradition. More on that in a minute.

Even St. Paul put his ideas about celibacy in context. Everybody references 1 Corinthians to justify celibacy. I wish they’d read the entire thing… Specifically, starting from 1 Corinthians 7:25. The entire teaching is put in the context of what they say as their end times…or the destruction of the temple.

Haydock’s Commentary has something useful on that:

" But every one hath his proper gift from God, so that some prudently embrace a single life, and also make a religious vow of always living so, as it has been practised by a great number both of men and women in all ages, ever since Christ’s time. Others have not this more perfect gift: they find themselves not disposed to lead, or vow a single life, they marry lawfully: it is better to marry than to burn, or be burnt by violent temptations of concupiscence, by which they do not contain themselves from disorders of that kind."

Marriage is good. Marriage is a vocation that has lead many souls to Heaven and a call from God. I’m sure there are people who were celibate in life who ended up with the goats while married couples ended up among the sheep. But celibacy is a better good, just like poverty is a better good than wealth.

 

[CRV]

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Bold emphasis is mine).

Footnotes:​

1. 19.11-12 Jesus means that a life of continence is to be chosen only by those who are called to it for the sake of the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
“8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
“32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided.”

 

[jack63]

I really believe the entire teaching from Jesus needs to be looked at here. Not just Matthew 19:10-12, but Matthew 19:1-12. I’m taking from the NARVACE. It is…

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

10 His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

When Jesus says “Let anyone accept this who can”, the only thing I can see that he is referring to is his entire teaching on marriage. To say that the “Let anyone accept this who can” refers to celibacy makes no sense in the context of what Jesus is saying. Jesus just gave a deep and long explanation of marriage. His disciples ask “is it better not to marry?” Jesus says not everybody can accept this teaching (about marriage). He gives exceptions of those who can’t accept this teaching including those who are basically celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He ends by saying “Let anybody accept this who can” at the end of his entire teaching on marriage referring to his teaching on marriage.

Does this mean that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven has its place. Absolutely! It is a blessed and beautiful tradition. However, I don’t see he how the entire Matthew 19:1-12 taken together can mean that celibacy is superior. If you can find some alternate analysis by a serious biblical scholar that says otherwise, I’d be genuinely interested.

 

[CRV]

9 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.

Referring to marriage. Not the priesthood.

10 His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘ Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.

Again, referring to marriage.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,

Those who are single, and decide to remain single (referring to men).

and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others,

as was the male servants in some places who were the servants of women.

there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

ie the priesthood.

Let anyone accept this who can.

Yes, those who can accept remaining celibate/chaste, to do so. As opposed to marrying or fornicating if not married.

By linking 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 32-33 to Matthew, also bears this celibacy out. For the sake of the kingdom of heaven - who else do you think this refers to if not priests/monks (leaving aside consecrated virgins).

If you can find some alternate analysis by a serious biblical scholar that says otherwise,

Apologies I’m not one. I was just giving my view(along with others) and showing why I think priestly celibacy is right, citing passages from the Bible. But as I’m not an exegete, I’m now leaving this thread to others who are with whom you may continue this discussion.

 

[jack63]

ie the priesthood.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) jack63:

Let anyone accept this who can.

And this is where this interpretation does not make any sense. I don’t agree with you. I read it as Jesus is actually referring to marriage “not priesthood” as what you should accept. It makes no sense for Jesus to give a deep long and meaningful description of marriage, give exceptions, and end the conversation by saying the last exception is best.

Also, read what Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke are actually saying in their 4th point. They are not saying celibacy is superior. They are saying celibacy is a marriage to the church. They use that language “marriage” likely because they actually understand what Jesus is saying here.

The question becomes is this the correct view (i.e. marriage to the church). The question is not about the superiority of celibacy.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

I don’t understand what your bottom line is. Is it that the Latin tradition is so necessary that it’s worth leaving all those people permanently without the Sacraments? Is this part of Trumpism that believes that some countries are just worthless sh-tholes?

Oh please don’t bring Trump into this or imply that upholding priestly celibacy is to treat the Amazonian people as second-class citizens. We’ve managed to bring the Gospel to many, many, many cultures throughout the long history of the Church without requiring ordaining married men to the priesthood. Did the Church need married priests when they were being crucified by the Japanese? How about when they were sent off to evangelize the Native Americans? Or getting thrown into Gulags in Russia? Were there problems with finding men willing to be ordained in those countries? Sure, but they were found and the churches in those countries are alive today. Isn’t watering down what we cherish (such as celibacy), what we’ve brought to every culture before them insulting? “It’s too hard to give you our 100%, something which has been considered normal for a thousand years and managed to be brought to many peoples other than yours.” I think that is treating them like second-class citizens.

When there is a devastating situation that is depriving huge parts of the Catholic diaspora of the sacraments due to isolation and distance, how can the Church in good conscience defer to a point of discipline over providing the food of life to hundreds of thousands of faithful?

 

[CradleRC58]

I can’t

I’m sitting on both of them

 

[Fauken]

When there is a devastating situation that is depriving huge parts of the Catholic diaspora of the sacraments due to isolation and distance, how can the Church in good conscience defer to a point of discipline over providing the food of life to hundreds of thousands of faithful?

By not compromising what we cherish. We hear all the time on this site that God works outside the Sacraments, does He not? Those same groups I just mentioned were deprived of the Eucharist for years. Bishop Schneider has an interesting story regarding this with his mother and how a group of women, including his mother, acted with just one host given to them by a priest. It can be done, it has been done, it’s just a matter of finding a way.

 

[godisgood77]

Is this true? If so, I find it encouraging. I thought this was a repeat of the synod on the family, 4 years ago, which was in fact pushed by the Pope and these not-exactly-orthodox Cardinals from Germany and other places.

I believe this is untrue. I’ve not seen anything about the Pope saying not to discuss these things at the Amazon Synod.

 

[Fauken]

Is this true? If so, I find it encouraging. I thought this was a repeat of the synod on the family, 4 years ago, which was in fact pushed by the Pope and these not-exactly-orthodox Cardinals from Germany and other places.

I believe this is untrue. I’ve not seen anything about the Pope saying not to discuss these things at the Amazon Synod.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...ynod-will-proceed-despite-vatican-objections/

I was apparently thinking of the wrong Synod. He was talking about the one the Germans will after the Amazonian one.

 

[Rubee]

What do they mean, ‘binding synodal path’ despite Vatican objections? Sounds kind of like a schism. In what way would it be ‘binding’ without being schismatic at the same time?

 

[Fauken]

What do they mean, ‘binding synodal path’ despite Vatican objections? Sounds kind of like a schism. In what way would it be ‘binding’ without being schismatic at the same time?

I have no idea what they think they’re doing. Whatever it is, it doesn’t sound good.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

When there is a devastating situation that is depriving huge parts of the Catholic diaspora of the sacraments due to isolation and distance, how can the Church in good conscience defer to a point of discipline over providing the food of life to hundreds of thousands of faithful?

By not compromising what we cherish. We hear all the time on this site that God works outside the Sacraments, does He not? Those same groups I just mentioned were deprived of the Eucharist for years. Bishop Schneider has an interesting story regarding this with his mother and how a group of women, including his mother, acted with just one host given to them by a priest. It can be done, it has been done, it’s just a matter of finding a way.

This explanation is so strange to my Catholic ear. What does it mean that “God works outside the Eucharist”, that makes the Eucharist incidental? The most fundamental of fundamentals as a Catholic is that the Eucharist is the source and summit of all Christian life. To not have it is a huge deprivation. All it takes is to put ourselves into the shoes of people deprived of the Body of Christ to be filled with hope that the Holy Spirit will remedy that through the initiative of the Church.

 

[Fauken]

This explanation is so strange to my Catholic ear.

And mine isn’t Catholic?

What does it mean that “God works outside the Eucharist”, that makes the Eucharist incidental? The most fundamental of fundamentals as a Catholic is that the Eucharist is the source and summit of all Christian life. To not have it is a huge deprivation. All it takes is to put ourselves into the shoes of people deprived of the Body of Christ to be filled with hope that the Holy Spirit will remedy that through the initiative of the Church.

I didn’t mean to make it sound incidental. But we’ve had instances throughout history where priests were going off into extremely dangerous places where few dared to tread and these countries were still evangelized. There may have not been too many, there may have been only one host for them to worship for a year, but Jesus was there. They would not have described themselves as hopeless even as the KGB was literally hunting for the very priest providing them the Sacraments. And not once in any of these scenarios did the Church have to sacrifice the gift of priestly celibacy to do so. The Faith is in those countries. It can be done.

 

[pnewton]

Wow! Reading this thread, it there are two, solid, orthodox, arguable, and legitimate sides to the issue of celibacy in this situation. I am glad this is over my pay grade.