R
Rachel_1
Guest
Please, if your friend becomes a priest and moves anywhere near Louisville, KY let me know so I can make sure I don’t go to whatever parish they are at. kthx
- Status
N
Newborn
Guest
I think he was rather brash with that comment about rubbing oil and waving hands, but I think his point was that was a priest practically does is actually quite simple, as august or important as it may be. But it really is not so complicated as to require a whole class of full-time Professionals.
I’m starting to see from even just some of the responses here a mentality of clericalism, to imagine the priest as some figure on a pedestal, that somehow the fact that he acts in persona christi sets him apart as a human being.
Remember, the teaching has always been that the priest is “another Christ” only at the moment of the sacrament being preformed. That has been over-inflated since Trent, to justify the creation of a whole class of holier-than-thou bureaucrats but that clericalism isn’t necessarily a healthy model, though it’s the one I am accustomed to.
It becomes rather incredulous, though, when one actually meets priests and realizes that many of them are not Saints nor even terribly competent individuals. Trust me, many of them are just working it as a job, all the institutionalism and bureaucracy that people are romantically portraying as “setting them apart” aside.
As for the Professionalization of the clergy, that started under Constantine, CDNowak, but it is only since Trent that there has really been the regimentation in seminaries or the conception of the priesthood based on the top-down Military model.
As opposed to a more “licensed contractor” model. Trust me, in the middle ages, local parsons often just did an apprenticeship with the local pastor. More educated clerics went to University, arranging their own living arrangements (just think of the Canterbury Tales) and then sought a position. Priests could even lease out their cure and take a beneficed position in the city at a chantry, be hired by nobles for their private chapels, etc etc etc. Priests were very much more like doctors or lawyers who, once licensed, could seek out a position, whether it involved priestly duties or not. Remember, all writing and reading was done by Clerics too…many had a position, then, at Court simply as scribes or secretaries. This was not all done by some sort of top-down assigning by the bishops.
I’m not saying the Medieval model didnt have pitfalls too. My point is just that there are many models possible. I’m not totally convinced the one my friend suggests is all good in all aspects, but we need to be willing to try some new models in some ways. The current one just isnt working. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend it is the one that was always used or universally used. Maybe the Ethiopian one would be better. Who knows? But this indignation over the idea of even considering it…is part of a Myth about how things “Always Have Been” that just isn’t true.
I’m starting to see from even just some of the responses here a mentality of clericalism, to imagine the priest as some figure on a pedestal, that somehow the fact that he acts in persona christi sets him apart as a human being.
Remember, the teaching has always been that the priest is “another Christ” only at the moment of the sacrament being preformed. That has been over-inflated since Trent, to justify the creation of a whole class of holier-than-thou bureaucrats but that clericalism isn’t necessarily a healthy model, though it’s the one I am accustomed to.
It becomes rather incredulous, though, when one actually meets priests and realizes that many of them are not Saints nor even terribly competent individuals. Trust me, many of them are just working it as a job, all the institutionalism and bureaucracy that people are romantically portraying as “setting them apart” aside.
As for the Professionalization of the clergy, that started under Constantine, CDNowak, but it is only since Trent that there has really been the regimentation in seminaries or the conception of the priesthood based on the top-down Military model.
As opposed to a more “licensed contractor” model. Trust me, in the middle ages, local parsons often just did an apprenticeship with the local pastor. More educated clerics went to University, arranging their own living arrangements (just think of the Canterbury Tales) and then sought a position. Priests could even lease out their cure and take a beneficed position in the city at a chantry, be hired by nobles for their private chapels, etc etc etc. Priests were very much more like doctors or lawyers who, once licensed, could seek out a position, whether it involved priestly duties or not. Remember, all writing and reading was done by Clerics too…many had a position, then, at Court simply as scribes or secretaries. This was not all done by some sort of top-down assigning by the bishops.
I’m not saying the Medieval model didnt have pitfalls too. My point is just that there are many models possible. I’m not totally convinced the one my friend suggests is all good in all aspects, but we need to be willing to try some new models in some ways. The current one just isnt working. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend it is the one that was always used or universally used. Maybe the Ethiopian one would be better. Who knows? But this indignation over the idea of even considering it…is part of a Myth about how things “Always Have Been” that just isn’t true.
O
Ocarm
Guest
I wouldn’t really call it modern, although it certainly hasn’t always been the norm. Most of the changes to secular priesthood occurred during the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century, when the ascendancy of Cluniac monasticism - there were so many Cluny monasteries tending to local populations in Europe that they almost formed a parallel diocesan structure - led to a mimicking of Cluniac norms for secular priests: saying the divine office, living in common, celibacy, the growth of communities of canons both informal and regular including groups living in cathedral precincts. The gradual supplanting of the Cluniac model by the Cistercian expansion didn’t change this situation. As stated, there was a blurring of the difference between being a secular priest and a consecrated religious.
I’m inclined to agree that there not only is but should be a distinction between religious and secular priests, and since it is entirely possible to be both, the options of a man who believes he is called to ordained ministry and to consecrated life are still quite broad. But I don’t think that the hierarchy of the church agrees for the most part - perhaps because so much of the hierarchy is made up of secular priests? Quite aside from the undoubted purely theological arguments that would be made, it can sometimes be hard to give latitide to others that you didn’t have yourselves. I don’t mean that its merely as capricious as that sounds, but it may be an element of the situation.
Although canon law does allow for exceptions to the typical seminary model, I don’t know that alternative structures are ever created for secular men, although I’d be interested to hear of any. As far as the model proposed in this thread goes, I think that there are manifold canonical issues quite aside from the issue of sharing a domicile. The pope could dispense with all of this in an authoritative documents on clerical discipline, of course.
N
Newborn
Guest
Thank you for that well-balanced and historically honest response, Mike.
That’s certainly a huge part of it. It’s hard to expect men who have been resocialized into the Institution so thoroughly themselves…to be able to critique it objectively or have sympathy for other models. But there are thousands of bishops in the world. Surely one must be willing to take some innovative risks and experiment…
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And if/when it fails it is his but on the line.
I do not believe that many bishops are risk takers in this manner. I do not believe that the Vatican, when appointing new bishops, would place this kind of risk taking high on their list of wants for a new bishop.
N
Newborn
Guest
Which is why the institutional Church is in a stagnant malaise.
The hierarchy is a “No Organization” and that’s why evangelical Protestant denominations with more independence are sky-rocketing:
martycauley.org/2006/04/no-organizations-it-occurs-to-me-that.html
We have as much from them about organizing non-bureaucratically, as they need from us about Doctrine.
Trust me, the emails and PMs we’ve gotten from these posts alone indicate that there is a big interest, and I’m sure my friend must have gotten even more through his blog. A bishop willing to risk the idea stands to gain.
I don’t really see, though, how people imagine it could “fail” spectacularly. At worst, it sort of fizzles out and doesn’t help that much. But I don’t see what sort of positive “dangers” people are concretely imagining. Seriously, what concrete situations are people so paranoid could arise? Pretty much everything (and I mean everything) already happens WITHIN the institutional structure, it’s not particularly effective at stopping anything (except creativity and entrepreneurialism).
Bishops NEED to put their “butt on the line”. The lack of leadership in the Church today is because they don’t. Because the values of keeping-ones-head-down and toeing-the-party-line are emphasized both in seminary and in choice of bishops. And so all this “authority” they are so jealous of guarding…is never actually invoked for any meaningful decisions.
O
Ocarm
Guest
I agree. Its very hard for an individual bishop to be this innovative, and in some ways, that is a good thing. Change, whether good or bad, tends to happen in a climate that supports it, or in other words when the church is ready for it.
Sometimes that is very frustrating, but it does at least ensure that changes are well-considered and debated before they occur - which is a contrast with innovation by politicians, which allows successive governments to make wholesale change only for it to be completely undone by the administration that follows. The results are often very destructive.
The model of church government is not perfect but it does avoid this, at least. I think we always have to assume that change within the church is very slow, but it does happen, and sometimes in remarkable ways. For better or worse, I doubt that mandatory celibacy for secular priests in the Latin church will survive another 100 years. Its already normative to have married priests in many Eastern churches, and also amongst converts, after all, and if this can be abrogated, so can other things.
What I would resist, however, is the idea that any such moves will in and of themselves renew the face of the church, or even end the putative ‘vocations crisis.’ If the church is seen to require change - and I hear this said a lot without much in the way of specifics - we will all have a role to play, and it won’t come about simply through a few alterations in matters of discipline.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I also think that lessening the academic load in the seminary would not be a good thing.
A priest is not being formed to just be a Sacrament machine nor is he being formed to be a parish priest. He is being formed to be a priest who may serve in a parish.
Many religious priests (if not most) not do do so.
And to hear how this guy denigrates the Sacraments, especially the Holy Anointing of the Sick makes me sick to my stomach. It is evidence that he is not called to Holy Orders as he has no respect for them or the Sacraments.
A priest is not being formed to just be a Sacrament machine nor is he being formed to be a parish priest. He is being formed to be a priest who may serve in a parish.
Many religious priests (if not most) not do do so.
And to hear how this guy denigrates the Sacraments, especially the Holy Anointing of the Sick makes me sick to my stomach. It is evidence that he is not called to Holy Orders as he has no respect for them or the Sacraments.
O
Ocarm
Guest
Its interesting that you should say this. More often here on CAF the received wisdom is that bishops never do as they’re told, ignore protocol and discipline as handed down by the Vatican, allow heresies and anarchy to reign in their dioceses, and so on and so on. (If you don’t believe me, go and look at the traditional Catholicism forum).
I guess it all depends on your model of a healthy organisation. Some people think that the greatest expression of faiths resides in absolute certainty and obedience; others that it lies in following conscience and ignoring rules if necessary. My own belief is that we have to find a middle path between those extremes - on the face of it, a logical impossibility, I know.
We live with this tension in religious life. On the one hand we take a vow of obedience, and have limited (or no) say in what happens to us. On the other hand, as religious we are called to be prophetic, and take risks, living a life that is not limited by the cultures in which we exist. The great saints were often revolutionaries, but then others were company men and women. Its an interesting dynamic.
Your friend has a lot of zeal, which is good. The difficulty is in finding how to apply it. Somehow we need to discover a way to use our energies that is in the pursuit of building the kingdom, and not merely tilting at windmills. And knowing the difference isn’t always easy.
O
Ocarm
Guest
Its perhaps worth saying again: a bishop couldn’t dispense from all of the canonical issues involved to even begin to enact the kind of model of priesthood suggested. That kind of authority is only given to the Holy See.
If your friend is serious about making a proposal to a bishop, he needs to consult a canonist first so that a more realistic plan could be formed. At the moment what he’s suggesting is kind of like saying that you’re going to open a new business in the US, but you’re going to ignore a dozen federal laws in doing it. You may not think this is fair or relevant or helpful or the way it should be, but it is the way it is.
It can’t be done, and no-one wiill take you seriously if that’s the approach. And that’s ignoring the rather dismissive remarks made about the office of priesthood and the sacraments, which whether they are merely careless or are actually an accurate description of his feelings, will also mean that he will be ignored.
Its best to acknowledge this now and if he’s really serious, let some realism enter the process. Approach someone looking like a crank, and however much you may change later, they’ll always think you’re a crank, whether that’s fair or not. For better or worse, at the moment this idea is unworkable.
I don’t have any problem with the idea of looking again at priestly formation, but that can only be done with proper respect for the office of ministerial priesthood, the structures in which it exists, and the nature of the sacraments and ministry that are inherent within it. The words I’ve heard so far have at least the appearance of denigrating all three.
Holy orders, and for that matter the consecrated life with which it is sometimes combined and sometimes confused, are much more than taking a few courses and wearing the ceremonial garb some of the time. Just like marriage and parenthood are more than sharing a house with a spouse and children. It your friend showed a proper understanding of this he might produce more realistic plans to put before the authorities.
C
Cowfold
Guest
There have been several in my lifetime. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to know where to draw the line.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
N
Newborn
Guest
I see that problem not as a lack of doing what they’re told, but as a fear of invoking their own authority. It is a crisis of authority, not a rebellion from it. On the part of the Vatican, too. If it wanted to, it could be more firm with these bishops. But everyone is so afraid of rocking the boat. It makes the men look incredibly weak.
In some ways, I suppose, it might need to start with the Pope. He needs to be strong and build them up so that that bishops will gain the confidence to be strong with their own local problems. But, right now, neither is. It is an absolutely entrenched status quo.
And I’d like to know specifically what canons.
His comments on the Sacraments may have been irreverent, but the point I think was simply that the priesthood does not require any particular professional expertise (like a doctor or lawyer might) to carry out its essential functions, which are actually incredibly simple in their essentials.
What is preventing the existence of “priests simplex” or something like that who would live like* Permanent Deacons*?
It wouldn’t get rid of the full-time paid pastors…it would merely supplement them.
If a permanent deacon can live independently and minister on a volunteer basis like that with his level of training…why is there this idea that gaining the ability to administer those three sacraments (which is the main thing that separates permanent deacons from priests in practice, along with celibacy currently), which do not objectively require any particular skill (we’re not Donatists) suddenly require such a tighter leash on the man? What are they so afraid of?
I’ll tell him I think that might be the more politic way to portray this: priests living more like celibate permanent deacons. Gaining independence on the one hand, but giving up a salaried position on the other.
O
Ocarm
Guest
I pointed out the relevant section above; once again:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PW.HTM
If your friend isn’t already familiar with these canons, he really is making the wrong approach to this enterprise.
Also of interest would be the document OPTATAM TOTIUS, or the Decree on Priestly Training:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html
The way this works is that anything the proposal suggests which is not permitted by either document, or anything which is not in the spirit of either document, would require a formal dispensation. They will usually state if the dispensation may come from the bishop alone; where not stated, it should generally be assumed the dispensation would have to be given at the level of the Holy See.
Hope this helps.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hiyas
And that is what his message to me was / is. His irrelevance speaks volumes
I disagree, my religious life / soul would be in his hands.
Then become a Deacon
Supplements may be helpful…but a well balanced diet is better.
It isn’t suddenly that obedience to the Church is a requirement of our Priests. If I can’t depend upon obedience to the Church on these issues…what will come later?
Irrelevance of the Sacraments, as already shown, for one.
I think your friend is trying to reduce Priesthood to a Sacramental giver
As always, just my thoughts
C
CDNowak
Guest
Okay, this is going to be a bit rough, but here goes:
The theology of the priesthood, as defined (but certainly not created, its roots are both patristic and Scriptural) at Trent and elaborated upon at the Second Vatican Council, links the priesthood inseparably with the bishop, both exist for the care of souls. To be a priest is to be a shepherd. (among the ECF Tertullian and Cyprian are notable for the clear reliance of the priest on the bishop)
The development of the discipline of the priesthood reached a certain maturity beginning in the 2nd - 3rd century, not as I had originally said here the monastic era which flourished beginning in the 5th century. The discipline of the priesthood, however, continued to develop. The rise of the monasteries began the differentiation between the religious and clerical states, which grew until the Gregorian reforms and from the rise of the University to the Reformation.
With the decline of the Roman civilization (and education), the clergy assumed an *unnatural *position as the professional class. This was extraneous to the vocation of the priesthood and often conflicted (in part leading to the investiture controversy). With the rise of the universities, the problem compounded, as the graduates of the university were largely ordained without regard to need or the service of the Church. This unusual situation contributed to the grave excesses, abuses, and immorality amongst the clergy prior to the ‘Reformation’.
Trent and the Counter-reformation imposed a rigidity to the entire Church that perhaps over compensated for the abuses immediately prior (as seen in the freezing of liturgical development and the rigidity of the seminary system).
The problem with the position taken by ‘A Sinner’ and Newborn is that ignores the theology of the priesthood from the Fathers through the 2nd Vatican Council, including a broader identification of the priest with Christ (that in particular goes back to Paul).
As much as I wish there were more that I could agree with here, the constant teaching of the Church is clear. The restoration of the minor orders (or the practice of duly instituted lay ministries) Certainly is a laudable reform. The hiring of permanent deacons as the diocesan clergy they are (for purposes of temporal administration, for example) could certainly also be done.
Likewise I would venture (perhaps a bit too boldly) to say that the need for the distinction between the priesthood and religious vocation has been exacerbated by the truly novel ordination of the majority of religious (this began prior to the latest council, IIRC). The decimation of the lay monks has contributed to the dissolution of monasteries (broadly among the Cistercians, I know for a fact).
The theology of the priesthood, as defined (but certainly not created, its roots are both patristic and Scriptural) at Trent and elaborated upon at the Second Vatican Council, links the priesthood inseparably with the bishop, both exist for the care of souls. To be a priest is to be a shepherd. (among the ECF Tertullian and Cyprian are notable for the clear reliance of the priest on the bishop)
The development of the discipline of the priesthood reached a certain maturity beginning in the 2nd - 3rd century, not as I had originally said here the monastic era which flourished beginning in the 5th century. The discipline of the priesthood, however, continued to develop. The rise of the monasteries began the differentiation between the religious and clerical states, which grew until the Gregorian reforms and from the rise of the University to the Reformation.
With the decline of the Roman civilization (and education), the clergy assumed an *unnatural *position as the professional class. This was extraneous to the vocation of the priesthood and often conflicted (in part leading to the investiture controversy). With the rise of the universities, the problem compounded, as the graduates of the university were largely ordained without regard to need or the service of the Church. This unusual situation contributed to the grave excesses, abuses, and immorality amongst the clergy prior to the ‘Reformation’.
Trent and the Counter-reformation imposed a rigidity to the entire Church that perhaps over compensated for the abuses immediately prior (as seen in the freezing of liturgical development and the rigidity of the seminary system).
The problem with the position taken by ‘A Sinner’ and Newborn is that ignores the theology of the priesthood from the Fathers through the 2nd Vatican Council, including a broader identification of the priest with Christ (that in particular goes back to Paul).
As much as I wish there were more that I could agree with here, the constant teaching of the Church is clear. The restoration of the minor orders (or the practice of duly instituted lay ministries) Certainly is a laudable reform. The hiring of permanent deacons as the diocesan clergy they are (for purposes of temporal administration, for example) could certainly also be done.
But this project of priests as sacrament machines… If we can ignore Ecumenical Councils than perhaps you are on to something, otherwise it is merely an antiquarianism.
As to the Carmelites, I do not believe that the secular priesthood is rightly fully separated from religious life. The priest is called to something altogether distinct from the lay state, and blurring that line (as so often done leading up to and since VII) is of no benefit to the secular priests or the Church. The “Fr O’Malley”'s are not an improvement over the “Fr Fitzgibbon”'s, as Bing would have us believe. There is a necessity of care of self that needs to be developed (that the over regimentation of the seminary undermines), but the identity of the priest has been fractured.Likewise I would venture (perhaps a bit too boldly) to say that the need for the distinction between the priesthood and religious vocation has been exacerbated by the truly novel ordination of the majority of religious (this began prior to the latest council, IIRC). The decimation of the lay monks has contributed to the dissolution of monasteries (broadly among the Cistercians, I know for a fact).
O
Ocarm
Guest
That’s an interesting question. There are a number of theological answers which, if your friend considers himself to be ready to challenge orthodoxy, he should already know, whether or not he agrees with them. And knowing them, he would then understand how to approach this proposal. Which would not be with the apparent flippancy that he has used so far.
I think that kind of phraseology suggests that the question is rhetorical and that you believe you already know the answer, and are assuming bad faith on the part of the people who make these decisions. If that isn’t what you think, it certainly sounds like it. And this underlying sense of anger and/or frustration I’m hearing from you as well as your friend doesn’t help your consideration of this whole issue.
Best wishes.
N
Newborn
Guest
Maybe. At the same time, isnt that what a priest is? I don’t think that is reductionist at all, as the Sacraments are very important. The priesthood takes its dignity from the Sacraments they dispense, not the Sacraments their dignity from the priesthood!
It seems to me that the “mysticism of the priesthood-as-such” was definitely a later invention, and that the early Presbyters were simply men chosen by the bishop to dispense the sacraments as a service to their community.
The Priest in-himself, as a mere mortal man outside his Sacramental function…was not put on a pedestal, was not treated differently than any man in the congregation except that he could preform this role. It did not become all-engulfing for them.
Bishops are said to be consecrated, and bishops seem to have always been a full-time lifestyle supported by the Church. But presbyters are not said to be consecrated, only their hands are. Extending that to his whole person and whole life…is a later (and clericalist) development.
We can advocate for changing their non-essential disciplinary decisions.
If this “theology” of the priesthood you claim was defined “at Trent” or “at Vatican II” was not always …then it is not of the Deposit of Faith.
Otherwise, that’s tantamount to saying that all throughout the Middle Ages, or back in catacomb days, or in the Ethiopian Church to this very day…that the whole clerical structure was heretical.
But I am not willing to say that. I don’t think it’s a dogmatic question like that. You are attempting to turn discipline into dogma in a clericalist way. That is the very thing we’re trying to deconstruct. The bishop may be consecrated as a permanent icon of Christ in his own person, in his own life. The simple presbyter, however, is not. He acts in persona Christi only at the moment the Sacraments are confected.
That is the connection with the bishop you speak of, and which I believe: the priest is the bishop’s “hands” as it were, distributing the sacraments to the parishes. He is only an instrument. But, outside that role, his whole person and life aren’t consecrated in the way a Bishop is. Only his hands are. The symbolism is quite clear.
If the “theology” of the priesthood that has developed in the West isn’t essential to the priesthood, then there is definitely flexibility and room for change and experimentation with different models. If approved by the due authorities, of course.
Your position requires simply writing off much of history, and certain Eastern churches…as simply “abuse”. I think that’s disingenuous.
As for needing to protect reverence to the Sacraments, the cat is out of the bag definitely. There are plenty of schismatic priests with valid Apostolic Succession; if someone wants to procure one of them, it’s easy enough. At that point the risk of one more…is worth the benefits.
But, even besides that point: permanent deacons get to take the Eucharist to the sick, etc. So I still don’t see what, exactly, the tighter leash is “protecting” anyone from.
O
Ocarm
Guest
I am inclined to agree with you, although obviously its difficult for me to comment on a complex issue briefly without being simplistic, but in monastic life particularly, the growing numbers of ordained men in the last 100 years or so is truly unusual, and in some countries like my own has been (amongst other reasons) because there was a pressure for men to be available for parochial work.
Thus in the UK we have the extraordinary situation of Benedictine monks who run a parish and other than an annual retreat rarely visit the monastery to which they initially made a vow of stability.
I think it is slightly different for mendicants, who by definition go where the work is and carry out a wide variety of ministries, some ordained and some lay. There are many ways to live out priesthood, and diocesan parish life is only one of them. Even with that said, some religious institutes have risked adopting overly clerical atttitudes and losing touch with their charisms.
I believe this is changing, and that clerical institutes like my own now attract more lay members than was true a few decades ago, and that there is a significant growth in the number of institutes that have lay brothers only as members. How this will develop in the future is known only to God.
Personally I’m all for some clearer definition of the roles of secular and religious clerics (and consecrated life more generally) but as you said in your fine and detailed post above, the proposal being considered here is out-of-synch with a great deal of theology, and as I’ve pointed out broadly, its also out of synch with the canon law based upon that theology.
C
CDNowak
Guest
My only remaining question is what tighter leash? In seminary, sure there is a short leash. Afterwards?
To cite one of 'A Sinner’s examples: Fr Z. Not in active priestly ministry, free to write, travel, live a so-called normal life. Is this what is desired?
Or like Fr McBrien, become a tenured professor?
Or be a scientist and philosopher like Fr Tad Pacholczyk?
Or to retire to a monastery like Archbishop Weakland or in seclusion like Bishop Williamson?
It seems the only limit is on holding political office (ala Fr Drinian).
- Status