Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

[JReducation]

But it was OK for Jesus to choose a married man as the first Catholic Pope? And it was OK for Jesus to choose eleven married men as Apostles? Or was that a bad thing also?

Let’s clarify some things in tiny steps here. Because language that is too long trips us up.

1. Jesus chose 12 men to be the first bishops of the Church.
2. To the best of our knowledge, Peter was married and John was celibate. We do not know anything about the other apostles.
3. Paul was also celibate.
4. Jesus and Paul both speak about celibacy as a higher calling and invite those who can, to do so.
5. The fact that Peter was married is not wrong.
6. The Church has never said that there is anything wrong with marriage.
7. Married men in the Eastern Rites can become deacons and priests, but never bishops.
8. Married men in the Latin Rite can become deacons.
9. Married men in the Latin Rite can become priests by a dispensation from the local bishop.
10. So far, every married man admitted to the priesthood, in the Latin Rite, is a minister who converted to Catholicism.
11. Single deacons or priests are never allowed to marry in any rite of the Catholic Church or any rite of the Orthodox Church either.
12. The fact that Jesus ordained Peter and made him Pope does not imply that the clergy has to be married. There is no biblical statement that makes this a command. This seems to have been a coincidence. Peter was married. He was also the first pope. The marriage and the papacy were not contingent on each other.
13. Peter was given the power to bind and unbind.
14. That power was handed down from generation to generation.
15. Pope Gregory VII made it binding that all candidates for the priesthood in the Latin Rite be single and remain celibate.
16. Pope Gregory inherited the power to bind from Peter.
17. As long as that bind is there, it is a mortal sin to violate it, because it is a sin against the authority of Christ himself.
18. The authority that Christ gives to Peter is what was given to Christ by the Father.
19. He who violates Peter’s authority, violate’s Christ’s authority.
20. Christ reminds the apostles that he who listens to them, listens to him.
21. In conclusion, the Pope can bind deacons and priests to be celibate, so can any bishop, without the permissiono of the pope. That’s why the Orthodox can do so. They have apostolic succession. All you need is apostolic succession to make a discipline into a morally binding law.

It’s just like any other system. The President of the USA can give an Executive Order, because he has Presidential Succession protected by the Constitution.

The Pope has apostolic succession, protected by scripture, sacred tradition and the magisterium.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

1. To the best of our knowledge, Peter was married and John was celibate. We do not know anything about the other apostles.

Not true according to Father John Eckert of EWTN: “With regards to the first apostles, early writings of the Church suggest that all of the Twelve apostles were married when called by our Lord, except the young beloved apostle, St. John.”
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489266&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=apostles+were+married&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[JReducation]

Not true according to Father John Eckert of EWTN: “With regards to the first apostles, early writings of the Church suggest that all of the Twelve apostles were married when called by our Lord, except the young beloved apostle, St. John.”
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489266&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=apostles+were+married&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

First of all, this is a possibility and not an important one at that.

Second, it does not change the facts. The Pope has the power to bind and unbind. That’s the point here. The Pope has bound Latin Rite candidates to the priesthood to be celibate.

Why ae you so bent on finding a problem with this?

I’ll share my own personal insight into this. I have nothing to gain or lose on this subject, mandatory celibacy for Latin Rite priests. I’m a religious and celibacy is not an option for religious. Even if the Church took away the requirement for Latin Rite priests, it would not impact religious. Religious are bound to a solemn vow of celibacy and there is nothing that the Church can do to change that. Therefore, we would not be affected.

I guess my point is, I don’t spend much time pondering or debating about Church disciplines that have no impact on me. Life has enough things to worry about. We can often disrupt our own inner peace by taking on issues that are non issues for us as individuals.

Unless you’re thinking about becoming a priest and want to be married, I would suggest that you let this one go. From your posts, I get a sense of urgency on your part, when the topics of celibacy or annulment come up.

Let us take example from St. Teresa of Avila.

God, give me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Or the advice that St. Francis once gave a brother. “Some things are not worth the time and energy that could be better spent in prayer and in service to the poor.”

Let’s just keep smiling and move along.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

1. The Church has never said that there is anything wrong with marriage.

What about the decree of Pope St. Siricius to Bishop Himericus of Tarragona in 385:
‘…Plurimos enim sacerdotes Christi atque levitas, post longa consecrationis suae tempora, tam de coniugiis propriis, quam etiam de turpi coitu sobolem didicimus procreasse et crimen suum hac praescriptione defendere, quia in Veteri Testamento sacerdotibus ac ministris generandi facultas legitur attributa…’ Enchiridion Symbolorum, Denzinger-Schoenmetzer, XXXVI ed, 185(89).

 

[Joab_Anias]

But it was OK for Jesus to choose a married man as the first Catholic Pope? And it was OK for Jesus to choose eleven married men as Apostles? Or was that a bad thing also?

Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Poor phrasing on my part probably. Its not allowed in the Roman rite as a discipline I think because its considered more efficacious for the ministry of the faithful. That doesn’t mean its impossible for a priest to be married. Just that the Church chooses it as a requirement of priests for various good reasons. Though the Church has made exceptions.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Not true according to Father John Eckert of EWTN: “With regards to the first apostles, early writings of the Church suggest that all of the Twelve apostles were married when called by our Lord, except the young beloved apostle, St. John.”
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489266&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=apostles+were+married&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Here is the quote from Fr. Levis that I mentioned above:

Priests of the West are forbidden to marry. Not so priests of Eastern rites provided they take a wife before Major Orders are conferred. The Church recently has accepted some Anglican and Lutheran married men into the Catholic Priesthood with their wives. This is by way of experimentation and so they are very limited in number. Yes, almost all the Apostles were married, **but assumed celibacy after their call by Jesus **to evangelize the whole world. God bless. Fr Bob Levis
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=379350&Forums=0&Experts=6&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=celibacy&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=5&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Note the part bolded there.

 

[bobzills]

Let’s clarify some things in tiny steps here. 13. Peter was given the power to bind and unbind.

1. That power was handed down from generation to generation.
2. Pope Gregory VII made it binding that all candidates for the priesthood in the Latin Rite be single and remain celibate.
3. Pope Gregory inherited the power to bind from Peter.
4. As long as that bind is there, it is a mortal sin to violate it, because it is a sin against the authority of Christ himself.

If what you say is true, or if it is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, then that would explain why the Eastern Orthodox are very reluctant to agree to any reunion. If the teaching is that the Pope has the power to bind as handed down from Peter, then this might be a big stumbling block to any possibility of a reunion between the two Churches as follows:
Catholics say that the Pope has the authority to bind.
Suppose now, that there were a reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. It would be unlikely, but why would it not be hypothetically possible that a hardline bishop (such as from the SSPX for an example) could be elected Pope and bind the whole Church to the following:
the rule of celibacy
the use of unleavened bread
the abolition of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and the imposition of the New Mass on the East.
Now if the Pope has the absolute power and authority to bind and loose, would this not be a serious issue for the Eastern Orthodox Churches and make them think twice before considering any attempt at reunion with the Catholics?

 

[bobzills]

Here is the quote from Fr. Levis that I mentioned above:

Note the part bolded there.

Where is the support for this statement? For example, did not Philip have children after his call?

 

[JReducation]

If what you say is true, or if it is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, then that would explain why the Eastern Orthodox are very reluctant to agree to any reunion. If the teaching is that the Pope has the power to bind as handed down from Peter, then this might be a big stumbling block to any possibility of a reunion between the two Churches as follows:
Catholics say that the Pope has the authority to bind.
Suppose now, that there were a reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. It would be unlikely, but why would it not be hypothetically possible that a hardline bishop (such as from the SSPX for an example) could be elected Pope and bind the whole Church to the following:
the rule of celibacy
the use of unleavened bread
the abolition of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and the imposition of the New Mass on the East.
Now if the Pope has the absolute power and authority to bind and loose, would this not be a serious issue for the Eastern Orthodox Churches and make them think twice before considering any attempt at reunion with the Catholics?

You’ve hit the nail on the head. This was the cause of the schism. The Orthodox bishops would not recognize the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome, also known as the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

They advocate for the First Among Equals. There is not possibility that the successor of St. Peter can be one among equals. Peter was never an equal to the other apostles. He was always the first, because the scriptures tell us that only he received the power to bind and unbind. Only he received the keys to the kingdom. Only he received the commission to guide and care for the flock. All other bishops do it in communion with him. Peter was told by Christ to lead his brothers, not be one among them.

This is the stumbling block to reunification with the Eastern Orthodox Christians. But we cannot change this. This is a dogma of the Church that must be believed by all Catholics.

In matters of faith, morals and discipline, the Pontiff’s authority is absolute and final, until another Pontiff makes the change. Other Pontiffs can only change disciplines, not dogmas. You are right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

You’ve hit the nail on the head. This was the cause of the schism. The Orthodox bishops would not recognize the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome, also known as the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

They advocate for the First Among Equals. There is not possibility that the successor of St. Peter can be one among equals. Peter was never an equal to the other apostles. He was always the first, because the scriptures tell us that only he received the power to bind and unbind. Only he received the keys to the kingdom. Only he received the commission to guide and care for the flock. All other bishops do it in communion with him. Peter was told by Christ to lead his brothers, not be one among them.

This is the stumbling block to reunification with the Eastern Orthodox Christians. But we cannot change this. This is a dogma of the Church that must be believed by all Catholics.

In matters of faith, morals and discipline, the Pontiff’s authority is absolute and final, until another Pontiff makes the change. Other Pontiffs can only change disciplines, not dogmas. You are right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So if they want to keep their Divine Liturgy intact and untouched by the Pope of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of any reunion with the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Where is the support for this statement? For example, did not Philip have children after his call?

You would have to ask Fr. Levis if you doubt him.

 

[pmoo]

Let’s clarify some things in tiny steps here. Because language that is too long trips us up.

1. Jesus chose 12 men to be the first bishops of the Church.
2. To the best of our knowledge, Peter was married and John was celibate. We do not know anything about the other apostles.
3. Paul was also celibate.
4. Jesus and Paul both speak about celibacy as a higher calling and invite those who can, to do so.
5. The fact that Peter was married is not wrong.
6. The Church has never said that there is anything wrong with marriage.
7. Married men in the Eastern Rites can become deacons and priests, but never bishops.
8. Married men in the Latin Rite can become deacons.
9. Married men in the Latin Rite can become priests by a dispensation from the local bishop.
10. So far, every married man admitted to the priesthood, in the Latin Rite, is a minister who converted to Catholicism.
11. Single deacons or priests are never allowed to marry in any rite of the Catholic Church or any rite of the Orthodox Church either.
12. The fact that Jesus ordained Peter and made him Pope does not imply that the clergy has to be married. There is no biblical statement that makes this a command. This seems to have been a coincidence. Peter was married. He was also the first pope. The marriage and the papacy were not contingent on each other.
13. Peter was given the power to bind and unbind.
14. That power was handed down from generation to generation.
15. Pope Gregory VII made it binding that all candidates for the priesthood in the Latin Rite be single and remain celibate.
16. Pope Gregory inherited the power to bind from Peter.
17. As long as that bind is there, it is a mortal sin to violate it, because it is a sin against the authority of Christ himself.
18. The authority that Christ gives to Peter is what was given to Christ by the Father.
19. He who violates Peter’s authority, violate’s Christ’s authority.
20. Christ reminds the apostles that he who listens to them, listens to him.
21. In conclusion, the Pope can bind deacons and priests to be celibate, so can any bishop, without the permissiono of the pope. That’s why the Orthodox can do so. They have apostolic succession. All you need is apostolic succession to make a discipline into a morally binding law.

It’s just like any other system. The President of the USA can give an Executive Order, because he has Presidential Succession protected by the Constitution.

The Pope has apostolic succession, protected by scripture, sacred tradition and the magisterium.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Fr. Jr

It is also true that all of us Catholics must try and live a Christ-like life - as much as we are capable. So, isn’t another reason for celibate priests is that they, as our church leaders, must be as Christ-like as possible?

 

[ron77nyc]

Fr. Jr

It is also true that all of us Catholics must try and live a Christ-like life - as much as we are capable. So, isn’t another reason for celibate priests is that they, as our church leaders, must be as Christ-like as possible?

We are all supposed to be like Christ. If every Christian were celibate we would have no priests at all. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything against free will. When celicacy became mandatory it was a deviation from apostolic tradition.

 

[Roy5]

ST. TERESA OR REINHOLD NIEBUHR?

JREducation. I had never heard that St. Teresa of Avila came up with the prayer for Serenity. The modern Protestant theologican Reinhold Niebhur usually is credited with that, and his daughter has written a whole book on the subject. I’d be interested in your source.

 

[GEddie]

We are all supposed to be like Christ. If every Christian were celibate we would have no priests at all. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything against free will. When celicacy became mandatory it was a deviation from apostolic tradition.

If every Christian became a martyr, the faith would go extinct. That does not negate some are called to be martyrs. Likewise, the vast majority of Catholics are not called to celibacy; some are. As with martyrdom, celibacy is a dimension of “closeness to Christ” that is not for everybody.

Nobody in the early 2000s goes into the clergy “against his will.” Everybody who enters has a decade to reflect on this step and what it entails and to leave it if he so chooses.

I don’t get why some are so bothered by priestly celibacy. To hear some talk, one would think it a fate worse than death. Yet, ANYBODY who does not find a spouse is required by God to live in chastity; and He never promises everybody a spouse.

 

[ron77nyc]

If every Christian became a martyr, the faith would go extinct. That does not negate some are called to be martyrs. Likewise, the vast majority of Catholics are not called to celibacy; some are. As with martyrdom, celibacy is a dimension of “closeness to Christ” that is not for everybody.

That’s my point. Some priests as well as lay people are called to celibacy and some are not. Those who have the gift of celibacy will be content being single.

Nobody in the early 2000s goes into the clergy “against his will.” Everybody who enters has a decade to reflect on this step and what it entails and to leave it if he so chooses.

Some men change their mind and there is nothing wrong with that. There are 150,000 of them today.

I don’t get why some are so bothered by priestly celibacy. To hear some talk, one would think it a fate worse than death. Yet, ANYBODY who does not find a spouse is required by God to live in chastity; and He never promises everybody a spouse

To hear some people talk about marriage you would think it was a fate worse than death. Sometimes it is.

The Church couldn’t cope with married priests so they made it mandatory for their own sake. Now anyone who can’t cope with celibacy is pushed aside. How could they turn the tables on men whom Jesus would have accepted?

 

[JReducation]

ST. TERESA OR REINHOLD NIEBUHR?

JREducation. I had never heard that St. Teresa of Avila came up with the prayer for Serenity. The modern Protestant theologican Reinhold Niebhur usually is credited with that, and his daughter has written a whole book on the subject. I’d be interested in your source.

Teresa cited the prayer and used it frequently. She is not the source of the prayer. It is like the Peace Prayer of St. Francis. He used it often, but he did not write it, especially as it appears today.

When we credit saints with certain prayers or devotions, it does not mean that they are the origin. They are the ones who made them famous.

Hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

We are all supposed to be like Christ. If every Christian were celibate we would have no priests at all. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything against free will. When celicacy became mandatory it was a deviation from apostolic tradition.

You have to be careful with your language or you will find yourself on a slippery slope. Mandatory celibacy for the Latin Church is not a deviation from the apostolic tradition. There were celibate apostles and Christ was celibate.

The Church adopted this discipline because of the graces that come from it. This discipline is also part of the Eastern Rites and the Orthodox Christians for their bishops.

Religious life cannot exist without celibacy. Its basis is the common life, which is not possible without celibacy.

As we can see, many gifts have been given to the Church through the celibate life. The Holy Spirit has raised up many religious families of celibate men and women in the Church for 2000 years.

Celibacy was also praised by the Fathers of the Church, long before it became a mandatory discipline for the Latin Rite secular priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

So if they want to keep their Divine Liturgy intact and untouched by the Pope of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of any reunion with the Roman Catholic Church?

This is not a legitimate reason. The Eastern Rite Catholics have their Divine Liturgy and the married secular clergy. They are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Bob, relax. You react as if the Pope has a conspiracy up his sleeve. Our popes of this century have all been very holy men and very favorably oriented toward the East and their tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

This is not a legitimate reason. The Eastern Rite Catholics have their Divine Liturgy and the married secular clergy. They are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Bob, relax. You react as if the Pope has a conspiracy up his sleeve. Our popes of this century have all been very holy men and very favorably oriented toward the East and their tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Not exactly correct. The Eastern rite petitioned the Pope for a married clergy in the USA. They were turned down by the Pope.