Change in the priesthood

[JimG]

tkdnick:

… He also suggested that we could ordain people for a limited amount of time.

Ordination, like Baptism and Confirmation, imparts a permanent character to the soul. The Church has no power to restrict the effects of ordination to a limited amount of time, any more than it could baptize for a limited amount of time.

 

[rwoehmke]

How soon we get into the mode of “its always been” at least as far back as we can personally remember. Paul, the 13th apostle, was a part timer. A tent maker and a priest. There were probably others as well. Then in the forties we had worker priests in France. I can’t justify your priest dragging out the women priest business again. Its a dead horse which will probably never run again. I am convinced that in addition to the rational expressed by the Vatican that there was good reason to avoid priestesses in the early times because this role was often found in the pagan religions and who is going to follow that path if “they do.” We will do the opposite and condemn the other. As a matter of fact we have just about the number of permanant deacons that equals the number of priests we are down from the last century. Why not see if a significant number would be willing to go on and become priests. Probably not an ideal solution or a total one but better than communion services on Sunday.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Let me just point out that with regard to being ordained for specific functions, that’s something that has existed historically, and which still exists in limited form today. In the Eastern Church there are actually three “grades” of priests. The lowest level only serves the Divine Liturgy, the second grade serves the Divine Liturgy and hears confessions while the highest grade can do everything a priest normally does. While this is not commonly used, it does exist.

In the Latin Church there was a thing called a “simplex priest” who was given faculties only to say Mass (some could also preach).

As for married priests: already have 'em, both in the East and the West. It’s not a solution to the problem. It’s a discipline that, frankly, I see no reason to change in the West.

Women priests – not now, not ever. So sayeth the Church.
Deacon Ed

 

[Fortiterinre]

I have changed the way I respond to provocation like this. Now I start a lecture on how the Church has had the permanent diaconate restored for the past generation and is still learning new things about THESE married clergy, which I think almost everyone agrees has been good for the Church. I can’t imagine married priests without a radical expansion of the permanent diaconate, and I don’t know any dioceses that are doing that. Deacons are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist, and even though they cannot consecrate, they would go along way toward assisting in a theologically appropriate way any “Eucharist shortage.” This variation of “the Church thinks in centuries” can really encourage people to think issues through a little. I cannot imagine the floodgates opening and married twentysomethings being ordained to the priesthood when the permanent diaconate is still relatively small. My parish has 4 permanent deacons, and they are all wonderful, but I don’t think we have yet come to see them as “ordinary ministers.” People clamoring for an end to celibacy tend to insult the work of permanent deacons at least in their logic, and I try to throw that back at them.

 

[Almeria]

Brendan:

I’ve noticed lately that , while there is a shortage of vocations to priesthood, there is little shortage of vocations to the pontificate.

Great line! I love it!

 

[kmktexas]

rwoehmke:

How soon we get into the mode of “its always been” at least as far back as we can personally remember. Paul, the 13th apostle, was a part timer. A tent maker and a priest. There were probably others as well. Then in the forties we had worker priests in France.

Why not see if a significant number would be willing to go on and become priests. Probably not an ideal solution or a total one but better than communion services on Sunday.

While I don’t fault your historical analysis, I don’t see how the idea of “worker priests” is tied to easing the priest shortage. I just don’t see how expecting that you priest hold down a “regular job” in addition to his 24/7 priestly duties is going to bring about more vocations. I am not questioning your post, just wondering how the priest in the OP made the logic leap.

I have always been sad in this diocese when I see the huge number of deaconate ordinations relative to those for priests. It makes me wonder is many of them would have/should have/could have been called to priestly ordination but didn’t hear the call because (in this country at least) we were doing such a bad job at teaching our young men how to recognize their vocations and at supporting those who might have been called. I think maybe the tide has turned on that, at least in a few dioceses.

 

[buffalo]

tkdnick:

During his homily yesterday, my priest espoused the idea that we should allow “part-time” priests, married priests, and female priest!!! I was so blown away! What blew me away even more was that a bunch of people actually STARTED CLAPPING!!!

A typical human solution to a divine problem.

 

[Fergal]

tkdnick:

What blew me away even more was that a bunch of people actually STARTED CLAPPING!!!

Why don’t people take to their feet and rebut this stuff? Why aren’t we eager to show zeal for the Catholic faith by standing up in public yes even in the Mass and rebut this stuff??

I know we have a woman here who did it one Sunday. The Priest spoke about the weather and the football match and she stood up and said ***“Father we have come here to hear about Christ, His Holy Word and Holy Mother Church, please teach us and lead us. We dont wanna hear about the results of a match.”

***Now that blew me away. If only I had the confidence.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

tkdnick:

During his homily yesterday, my priest espoused the idea that we should allow “part-time” priests, married priests, and female priest!!! I was so blown away! What blew me away even more was that a bunch of people actually STARTED CLAPPING!!!

Depends upon the context. Nothing against doctrine to discuss the possibility of part-time priesthood or removing the vow of chastity from certain orders of the priesthood. Female priesthood is walking a thinner line, but I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter in context - especially given the recent publicity to certain “progressive” elements of the Church.

If your priest was suggesting that the laity should demand the changes, then I think the priest was leading his parish astray by raising false expectations of change. If he was simply raising the topic in honesty and openness - to address concerns voiced from the pews - that is another matter. So, like I said, it’s all about the context IMHO.

Peace and Charity,

 

[SusanL]

Fergal:

I know we have a woman here who did it one Sunday. The Priest spoke about the weather and the football match and she stood up and said "Father we have come here to hear about Christ, His Holy Word and Holy Mother Church, please teach us and lead us. We dont wanna hear about the results of a match."

Now that blew me away. If only I had the confidence.

I bet that was an older woman, right? Women tend to get bolder when they get older (and they can get away with it better, too. )

 

[buffalo]

Fergal:

Why don’t people take to their feet and rebut this stuff? Why aren’t we eager to show zeal for the Catholic faith by standing up in public yes even in the Mass and rebut this stuff??

I know we have a woman here who did it one Sunday. The Priest spoke about the weather and the football match and she stood up and said ***“Father we have come here to hear about Christ, His Holy Word and Holy Mother Church, please teach us and lead us. We dont wanna hear about the results of a match.”

***Now that blew me away. If only I had the confidence.

Someone had mentioned that when a priest starts down a wrong road that members of the congregation stand up until he stops.

 

[Fergal]

Yah it was an older woman. Powerful stuff and fair play to her. Of course the Priest referred to her later, in private circles, as a crazy member of the congregation…

I mentioned in a much earlier post that maybe we should consider standing silently in protest at heresy and error. This was a result of this brave womans action. I just would not have the confidence to talk up or shout up

 

[tkdnick]

Robert in SD:

Depends upon the context. Nothing against doctrine to discuss the possibility of part-time priesthood or removing the vow of chastity from certain orders of the priesthood. Female priesthood is walking a thinner line, but I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter in context - especially given the recent publicity to certain “progressive” elements of the Church.

If your priest was suggesting that the laity should demand the changes, then I think the priest was leading his parish astray by raising false expectations of change. If he was simply raising the topic in honesty and openness - to address concerns voiced from the pews - that is another matter. So, like I said, it’s all about the context IMHO.

Peace and Charity,

I don’t have any problems with discussions either. However, they should be done in the proper setting. And the Mass is not the proper setting in my view.

 

[Exporter]

It is difficult to believe that am American Priest located in California would stand in the pulpit and indicate that he would welcome "part-time priests, women priests, and married priest.

I have found that you have to listen carefully. One little word thrown in can make the body of the statement to mean the opposite. Since you said you sent the Bishop an e-mail I assume you listened correctly. Did you ask that priest after Mass just what he meant? It would be a shame to have misunderstood and the e-mailed the Bishop that the priest was advocating women priest.

 

[tkdnick]

Fergal:

Yah it was an older woman. Powerful stuff and fair play to her. Of course the Priest referred to her later, in private circles, as a crazy member of the congregation…

I mentioned in a much earlier post that maybe we should consider standing silently in protest at heresy and error. This was a result of this brave womans action. I just would not have the confidence to talk up or shout up

Yeah, I don’t think I would have the gumption to stand up and say something.

 

[tkdnick]

Exporter:

It is difficult to believe that am American Priest located in California would stand in the pulpit and indicate that he would welcome "part-time priests, women priests, and married priest.

I have found that you have to listen carefully. One little word thrown in can make the body of the statement to mean the opposite. Since you said you sent the Bishop an e-mail I assume you listened correctly. Did you ask that priest after Mass just what he meant? It would be a shame to have misunderstood and the e-mailed the Bishop that the priest was advocating women priest.

I emailed the priest. I’m kinda reluctant to email the priest. I’m sure I know what he meant because he continued to talk about it after Mass to various people. He has even had arguments with Bishops regarding part-time, married, and female priests.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

tkdnick:

During his homily yesterday, my priest espoused the idea that we should allow “part-time” priests, married priests, and female priest!!! I was so blown away! What blew me away even more was that a bunch of people actually STARTED CLAPPING!!!

April Fools!!!

 

[Milliardo]

tkdnick:

What he was talking about with regards to part-time priests is that we should ordain people for limited functions. i.e., person 1 is ordained for confessions only, person 2 is ordained for the Eucharist only, person 3 for… He also suggested that we could ordain people for a limited amount of time.

Now that’s lame. What was he thinking, that his priestly ministry can be delegated to someone else? I don’t think there’s anything like what he said ever done (or else the Church would’ve been doing it a long time ago). Pure nonsense.

As for married and women priests, his big thing was that we have a shortage of priests, and if we withdrew the restrictions of it having to be a celibate male, then we wouldn’t have the problem anymore. After all…it only takes 3 signatures from Rome to become a priest (he said that over and over on Sunday).

I am not sure about the 3 signatures. I highly doubt it’s all that easy to become a priest. Why go through seminary if one can petition Rome to become a priest? As for the restrictions, it is after all a discipline. Eastern rite Catholics have a married clergy, after all (but married men are ordained; those already ordained cannot marry) so it might be that this might be taken up for the Latin rite as well. But that’s not for your parish priest to decide.