Eastern Catholic Priesthood

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Now you’re getting into a discussion about the Trinity. This one is about the priesthood.

The message I responded to separated Christ from God, so I thought that was the given. If you’re going to be a moving target, I’ll never catch up to you.

One cannot discuss the priesthood, marriage, or any of the other sacraments without also discussing the Trinity. All things flow from the Trinity and all things are returning to the Trinity.

Also, we can never separate Christ from God because Christ is God. To separate Christ from God would amount to heterodoxy at best and heresy at worst. I think what you mean is that the message you responded to separated (or, more appropriately, distinguished) Christ from the Father and made the claim that the Bishop acts “in persona Patris”. In reality it didn’t.

I do apologize, however, if I have been a moving target. That’s not my intention at all.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As I said elsewhere in this thread, Latin Catholics would agree that all the baptized act ‘in the person of Christ’ in a certain sense by virtue of our adoption into the divine sonship; as Scripture says, we ‘put on Christ’ at baptism. It is also true that priests receive their ministry from bishops: for example, a Latin priest cannot hear confessions unless his bishop has granted him faculties. That being said, the bishop is sharing his priestly ministry with his presbyters, so it logically follows that the presbyters are sharing in the priesthood of Christ, even if in a lesser sense than the bishop. If the priest is not acting in the person of Christ, how does he offer a pleasing sacrifice to the Father when Christ alone is our one true priest and Christ alone our one true sacrifice.

From what I understand, in the early Church, even when the priest was offering the Eucharist, it was still seen as the local Bishop offering the Eucharist with the presbyter acting on his (the Bishop’s) behalf. The same applies to absolution, Holy Anointing, Chrismation, etc. Even today among the Eastern Churches there is still this sense of the priest acting on the Bishop’s behalf (hence there are no problems when Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist are all administered by the priest on those being illumined).

Again, it is not so much that they presbyters are sharing in the priesthood of Christ, as they are sharing in the priesthood of the Bishop, who shares in the priesthood of Christ. Cut off from their Bishop, they are no longer considered priests (this is why an Orthodox priest who leaves the Orthodox Church is no longer considered a priest by the Orthodox Church). Check out the discussion on the forums at www.byzcath.org. They are currently discussing the differences between the Augustinian and Cyprianic views of the presbyterate and episcopacy. Very fascinating stuff.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

One cannot discuss the priesthood, marriage, or any of the other sacraments without also discussing the Trinity. All things flow from the Trinity and all things are returning to the Trinity.

Also, we can never separate Christ from God because Christ is God. To separate Christ from God would amount to heterodoxy at best and heresy at worst. I think what you mean is that the message you responded to separated (or, more appropriately, distinguished) Christ from the Father and made the claim that the Bishop acts “in persona Patris”. In reality it didn’t.

I do apologize, however, if I have been a moving target. That’s not my intention at all.

I agree with you, but the message I responded to did make a distinction between the Father and the Son. I replied within that distinction and still say, while a priest may operate in persona Christi, no one may take the place of the Father.

 

[Cecilianus]

The main reason why we like our married priests is that clerical celibacy historically has been a Latinization. I wish the Greek Church had gone back to Apostolic celibacy at the same time the Latins did, but they didn’t - and now clerical celibacy is often imposed on us as forcible Latinization. I completely agree with the Latin theology here, but it’s inopportune to bring to the Eastern Catholic Churches until we have become authentically Orthodox again.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The main reason why we like our married priests is that clerical celibacy historically has been a Latinization. I wish the Greek Church had gone back to Apostolic celibacy at the same time the Latins did, but they didn’t - and now clerical celibacy is often imposed on us as forcible Latinization. I completely agree with the Latin theology here, but it’s inopportune to bring to the Eastern Catholic Churches until we have become authentically Orthodox again.

Cecilianus,

I strongly recommend you read the above posted link to an article by Fr. Maximos Davies of Holy Resurrection Monastery (Romanian Greek Catholic). Celibacy (in the sense of radical sexual continence), from an Eastern perspective, is only appropriate for monastics and for those priests who choose it, but it ought never to be enforced on the entire presbyterate. This is so because such radical celibacy is most appropriately lived in community, with the support of others equally dedicated to such radical asceticism. Without the support of the community celibacy can lead to loneliness, bitterness, and emotional, psychological and spiritual distance from those one is called to serve.

The married priesthood, by the way, is every bit as ancient and apostolic as the celibate priesthood. It even existed for centuries in the West. However, I don’t remember the details of its demise in Western Christianity. So one could equally speak of the Latin Church returning to the apostolic tradition of married clergy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I agree with you, but the message I responded to did make a distinction between the Father and the Son. I replied within that distinction and still say, while a priest may operate in persona Christi, no one may take the place of the Father.

If you’re referring to one of my previous posts, then it never made the distinction between Father and Son. It simply said, deacon in place of Christ, priests in place of college of Apostles, Bishop in place of God. No mention of the Father was made. If you’re referring to a post by someone else, however, I apologize for my own lack of understanding.

 

[xiaoguo0722]

I have so many time now, I don’t know where I can go, so I stay here to enjoy myself these messages
.
//.
?
/
True Religion jeans
True Religion
True Religion denim

Hair Straight Iron
Hair Straightening Iron

 

[Filioque]

In the place of God??? Doesn’t to it for me. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. No one is in the place of God. That is, IMO, borderline blasphemy.

It would be if the interpretation of “In the place of God” was a literal translation. But as the saying goes, “the translator is a traitor.” In the place of here does not confect the meaning of “as a replacement of” but rather as a representative or vicar authorized of God. It is by and with the Authority given him by God, through the Church that he is, if you would rather, standing in the place God has granted him to rule as bishop.

 

[Cecilianus]

Cecilianus,

I strongly recommend you read the above posted link to an article by Fr. Maximos Davies of Holy Resurrection Monastery (Romanian Greek Catholic). Celibacy (in the sense of radical sexual continence), from an Eastern perspective, is only appropriate for monastics and for those priests who choose it, but it ought never to be enforced on the entire presbyterate. This is so because such radical celibacy is most appropriately lived in community, with the support of others equally dedicated to such radical asceticism. Without the support of the community celibacy can lead to loneliness, bitterness, and emotional, psychological and spiritual distance from those one is called to serve.

The married priesthood, by the way, is every bit as ancient and apostolic as the celibate priesthood. It even existed for centuries in the West. However, I don’t remember the details of its demise in Western Christianity. So one could equally speak of the Latin Church returning to the apostolic tradition of married clergy.

I will read the article. But the view you expressed seems somewhat denigrating to the holy priests who find fulfillment in the total service of their parish, finding their vocation through celibacy. I have known many psychologically healthy, happy priests. I don’t buy the liberal/Protestant argument that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is so horrible - it is one of the three Evangelical Counsels. Celibacy is a truly beautiful gift. Even in the East, a married priesthood is seen as a bit degraded - only celibates can become bishops, and in some places (Armenia, for example) only celibate priests or vardapets could preach.

The married priesthood existed during the Dark Ages in the West - not the cheeriest time in Church history. In the Apostolic age married men had to set aside their wives to become priests (which is what usually happened - we see lots of lives of the saints where bishop saints are mentioned as having daughters).

 

[twf]

Phillip Rolfes:

Regardless, the bishop is still sharing Christ’s priesthood with his presbyters - to say that the presbyters are simply exercising the bishop’s priesthood undermine’s the very direct and real role of Christ in each and every sacramental action of the Church. It is not the priesthood of the bishop, per se, that confects the eucharist, but rather the priesthood of Christ. Whether the priesthood flows directly from Christ to the presbyter, or from Christ to the bishop and then to the presbyter, the end result is the same, is it not? I realize that there are implications for the status of one’s priesthood once communion with a bishop has been severed, but as far as the eucharistic sacrifice is concerned, is the Latin and Greek view really that different? Let’s not consider here the wider question of whether or not a priest remains a priest once he leaves full communion with his bishop - it is the very act of offering sacrifice that I am concerned with.

For what its worth, the Latin Church fully agrees that a presbyter must only celebrate the sacraments under the authority of a bishop. The presbyter has received his authority from his bishop. The difference is that Latin teaching maintains that the fundamental ontological sharing in the bishop’s priesthood given at ordination can not be taken away once granted, even if the presbyter’s authority to minister in the Church can be.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I will read the article. But the view you expressed seems somewhat denigrating to the holy priests who find fulfillment in the total service of their parish, finding their vocation through celibacy. I have known many psychologically healthy, happy priests. I don’t buy the liberal/Protestant argument that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is so horrible - it is one of the three Evangelical Counsels. Celibacy is a truly beautiful gift. Even in the East, a married priesthood is seen as a bit degraded - only celibates can become bishops, and in some places (Armenia, for example) only celibate priests or vardapets could preach.

The married priesthood existed during the Dark Ages in the West - not the cheeriest time in Church history. In the Apostolic age married men had to set aside their wives to become priests (which is what usually happened - we see lots of lives of the saints where bishop saints are mentioned as having daughters).

The view you express is not the view of the East. Married priests are seen as the norm, never a concession. There most certainly is not a perception as the married priesthood being in some way “degraded.” Just because they have no chance of one day becoming bishop doesn’t mean that the East has a “degraded” view of them. In the Apostolic age married men were most certainly not required to give up their wives. The brother of St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus (I believe, possibly St. Gregory of Nyssa) was a married priest who only gave up relations with his wife after he was more-or-less forced into becoming a bishop by St. Basil.

I don’t deny that celibacy is a gift. But for the Eastern Christian it is seen as a gift for monastics, not necessarily for priests (unless they themselves have also receive that particular gift). I don’t mean to sound denigrating. I have an enormously high regard for the celibate state; if I didn’t then I couldn’t truly appreciate my own married state. But traditionally celibacy has always been seen as being for monks, not parish priests (at least in the East).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Phillip Rolfes:

Regardless, the bishop is still sharing Christ’s priesthood with his presbyters - to say that the presbyters are simply exercising the bishop’s priesthood undermine’s the very direct and real role of Christ in each and every sacramental action of the Church. It is not the priesthood of the bishop, per se, that confects the eucharist, but rather the priesthood of Christ. Whether the priesthood flows directly from Christ to the presbyter, or from Christ to the bishop and then to the presbyter, the end result is the same, is it not? I realize that there are implications for the status of one’s priesthood once communion with a bishop has been severed, but as far as the eucharistic sacrifice is concerned, is the Latin and Greek view really that different? Let’s not consider here the wider question of whether or not a priest remains a priest once he leaves full communion with his bishop - it is the very act of offering sacrifice that I am concerned with.

For what its worth, the Latin Church fully agrees that a presbyter must only celebrate the sacraments under the authority of a bishop. The presbyter has received his authority from his bishop. The difference is that Latin teaching maintains that the fundamental ontological sharing in the bishop’s priesthood given at ordination can not be taken away once granted, even if the presbyter’s authority to minister in the Church can be.

OK. I see what you mean and I won’t debate it any further. I will only say that in Eastern/Byzantine theology there is no “indellible mark” given to the priest upon his ordination. His priesthood is entirely dependent on that of the bishop. Once he leaves communion with his bishop and the canonical Church, he’s no longer a priest.

I’ll have to listen again to what Met. Kallistos of Diokleia says. If you’re interested I’ll post his comments later/tomorrow.

 

[Wildkit]

OK. . His priesthood is entirely dependent on that of the bishop. Once he leaves communion with his bishop and the canonical Church, he’s no longer a priest.
.

So what is the point?

 

[Vico]

The “indelible mark” for three sacraments (which should not be repeated) was declared by Pope Eugene IV in 1439 and confirmed in the Council of Trent.

(1547 A.D.) Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 9:

“If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation and order, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, by reason of which they cannot be repeated, [Eugene IV in decr. ad Armenos (Denzinger, no. 695)] let him be anathema.”

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm

Denzinger 695:

Decree for the Armenians * [From the Bull “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439]

695 In the fifth place we have reduced under this very brief formula the truth of the sacraments of the Church for the sake of an easier instruction of the Armenians, the present as well as the future. There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily. Of these the five first ones are ordained for the spiritual perfection of each and every one in himself, the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church. For, through baptism we are spiritually reborn; through confirmation we increase in grace, and are made strong in faith; reborn, however, we are strengthened and nourished by the divine sustenance of the Eucharist. But if through sin we incur the disease of the soul, through penance we are spiritually healed; spiritually and corporally, according as is expedient to the soul, through extreme unction; through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased. All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled. Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person. The remaining four do not imprint a sign and admit of repetition.

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Phillip Rolfes:

Regardless, the bishop is still sharing Christ’s priesthood with his presbyters - to say that the presbyters are simply exercising the bishop’s priesthood undermine’s the very direct and real role of Christ in each and every sacramental action of the Church. It is not the priesthood of the bishop, per se, that confects the eucharist, but rather the priesthood of Christ. Whether the priesthood flows directly from Christ to the presbyter, or from Christ to the bishop and then to the presbyter, the end result is the same, is it not? I realize that there are implications for the status of one’s priesthood once communion with a bishop has been severed, but as far as the eucharistic sacrifice is concerned, is the Latin and Greek view really that different? Let’s not consider here the wider question of whether or not a priest remains a priest once he leaves full communion with his bishop - it is the very act of offering sacrifice that I am concerned with.

For what its worth, the Latin Church fully agrees that a presbyter must only celebrate the sacraments under the authority of a bishop. The presbyter has received his authority from his bishop. The difference is that Latin teaching maintains that the fundamental ontological sharing in the bishop’s priesthood given at ordination can not be taken away once granted, even if the presbyter’s authority to minister in the Church can be.

Not bad. I wish cradle Catholics had as much knowledge of their faith as you do. Maybe they should all convert to fundamentalism for a few years and revert. It’ll get them into RCIA at least.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

OK. I see what you mean and I won’t debate it any further. I will only say that in Eastern/Byzantine theology there is no “indellible mark” given to the priest upon his ordination. His priesthood is entirely dependent on that of the bishop. Once he leaves communion with his bishop and the canonical Church, he’s no longer a priest.

Is that true? What happened to "you are a priest forever in the line of Melchesidek? ‘No longer a priest’ is a radical departure from the Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

I’ll have to listen again to what Met. Kallistos of Diokleia says. If you’re interested I’ll post his comments later/tomorrow.

Please do. I have great respect for him.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Is that true? What happened to "you are a priest forever in the line of Melchesidek? ‘No longer a priest’ is a radical departure from the Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

Please do. I have great respect for him.

I will try to get some information from Met. Kallistos some time today. I can’t guarantee it, however, because there are about six hours worth of discussion that I have to sift through in order to get to it.

As to the “you are a priest forever…” I have no answer to that. There are some things in Byzantine theology which, at least on the surface, seem to contradict Scripture. One such example is the idea that marriage is for eternity, not “until death do us part”. Remarriage after death is seen as a concession to human weakness, and not the ideal. I have no answers to these questions, and probably never will. All I can say is that it is a difference in theology between East and West. But it is just that, a difference in theological opinion, not in dogmatic belief. This applies as well to the theology of the priesthood in East and West.

“No longer a priest…” may be a radical departure from the Latin understanding of the priesthood, based on a Latin theology of the priesthood, but is not necessarily a departure from the “Catholic” understanding of the priesthood as the Catholic understanding embraces both the Latin and any of the Eastern/Oriental understandings. Here the Church embraces the legitimate diversity of theological speculation/opinion between East and West.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I did some further research last night and I would like to correct some things which I’ve said, and further nuance others. It will have to wait until possibly after lunch, however, because I have work to do this morning. Interestingly, I did find that there is an ancient tradition of seeing the Bishop as standing in the place of God the Father. This tradition goes back at least to St. Ignatius of Antioch who said:

“I exhort you to strive to do everything in a divine harmony under the leadership of the bishop who holds the place of God the Father.”

I was correct in saying that in the East (at least the Byzantine East) the priest is not seen as standing “in persona Christi”, but he is seen as being an icon of Christ. The two, however, are not the same thing, and one must understand the theology of icononography in order to understand the difference. More on this later, God willing.

To all, I’d like to apologize for being heavy-handed in my arguing. I know that I need to be more humble and open-minded while discussing such sensitive matters.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

To all, I’d like to apologize for being heavy-handed in my arguing. I know that I need to be more humble and open-minded while discussing such sensitive matters.

You have nothing to apoligize for. You have been unfailingly courteous in all your posts.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is that true? What happened to "you are a priest forever in the line of Melchesidek? ‘No longer a priest’ is a radical departure from the Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

This is one of the departure points between Byzantine and Western Theology. Another one is that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage, not the couple, in Byzantine Theology.

These are things that are not discussed much but as a Catholic I believe that we must hold to the Catholic Churches Teaches until we are told otherwise. A priest is a priest forever. Byzantine Theology kind of has this idea as a priest is no longer a priest when he leaves his bishop but if he finds a new bishop he is not re-ordained.

At least that is how I feel on this subject.