Freelance Priests

[kimmielittle]

Maybe. At the same time, isnt that what a priest is?

IMHO If you think this - then you know little…and just furthers my case for theology courses…and instruction.

**We **can advocate for changing their non-essential disciplinary decisions.

** You ** can…but I have to warn you…I’m a kid…and I can see the wrongness in your proposal.

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.

Well…just like your irreverent friend…I wouldn’t go to them for Sacraments

At that point the risk of one more…is worth the benefits.

Sooo…one more added to…equates to good?

 

[curlycool89]

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.

That is the truth. A priest is not just a sacrament machine or some guy who reads from some book during mass on Sunday. The way I hear it put is that the priest has to be Christ for the people wherever he is.

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.

I wonder if you know what the requirements for the sacraments are. One is form, which is the words and waving of hands and such (as your friend would describe it), and for the most part it is kept very simple. The second is valid matter (wheaten bread for the Eucharist is one example). The third could be considered the most important, and that is intent. I’ve heard that included in intent is wanting to do what the Church wants. And to know the intent it takes training in theology, history, and philosophy. Even with all that training it’s no guarantee that they’ll be ordained at the end of their studies.

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.

I believe Brother JR here has expanded on this point before. I can’t seem to remember where though.

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.

From this it’s pretty clear that you don’t have a real understanding of what doctrine is. When we talk about things being “defined”, most of the time it’s due to wording convenience. A better phrase would be “refining the understanding the the doctrine”. As one of my profs explained to us (he happens to be a canonist and a priest) the “doctrine is there to comment on the dogma”. The dogma is set in stone and must be believed. The doctrine is refined over time in order to better understand the tenants of the faith.

The priesthood is also understood as being sacrificial. The Anglican’s didn’t seem to understand this and wound up with invalid Holy Orders.

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.

And that is straight “ends justifies the means”. Even one rogue priest is too many because he has the ability to mislead hundreds away from the Church and the truth. That is the other reason why the training is so strict and hard, because only those who truly want to follow through with their vocation will come out in the end, and that makes for a better Church.

 

[CDNowak]

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.

Development of doctrine, as the distinctiveness of the priesthood from the episcopacy and the diaconate only fully emerged toward the end of the second century, so too did the theology of the priest unpack from the end of the first century. (Elements, particularly the identification of the priesthood as a sharing in the ministry of the bishop, are constant, ignored in practice during the Middle Ages, but never condemned).

I guess at this point my challenge becomes this: separate for me the discipline and doctrine contained in Presbyterorum Ordinis. If you wish to deconstruct, do it constructively, not mere hack’n’slash.

I could be wrong (and I would submit even to the popular judgement of the EC forum), but the majority of the Eastern Churches have a similar theology of the priesthood, particularly in relation to the bishop (actually stronger in its tie to the one Liturgy).

As far as history, there is one period, prolonged though it was, which I identified as having a peculiar usage of the clergy. The clergy filled a gap in that period for obvious reasons, but it is safe to say that one period stands in contrast to the development of the priesthood to, and after, that point. Fixing that one point as normative without consulting the ECF’s from the 2nd century on and the Councils, examining both the doctrine and, in context, the discipline, is a form of antiquarianism (itself a species of the naturalistic fallacy).

The freelance priest, a definite historical anomaly and theological absurdity, brings to mind St Stan’s or perhaps Rent-a-priest.

 

[CDNowak]

I believe Brother JR here has expanded on this point before. I can’t seem to remember where though.

I’m fairly certain he has as well, as has ByzCath, I have have ventured into the topic on occasion. After re-reading PO, I am more confident that I have solid support for my position that the secular priesthood -]is /-]ought to be more akin to religious life than to lay life.

 

[Newborn]

My only remaining question is what tighter leash? In seminary, sure there is a short leash. Afterwards?

Then what of the canonical barriers you claimed were inherent in our model? I mean, if priests can do all those things you listed…why must he be Salaried by the diocese in a parish assignment? Couldn’t he work as a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, in business, etc…all the while saying his breviary, and volunteering at a parish to help take one of the Masses on Sunday, hear confessions, etc?

The cases you mention though are, you know, anomalous.

Development of doctrine, as the distinctiveness of the priesthood from the episcopacy and the diaconate only fully emerged toward the end of the second century, so too did the theology of the priest unpack from the end of the first century. (Elements, particularly the identification of the priesthood as a sharing in the ministry of the bishop, are constant, ignored in practice during the Middle Ages, but never condemned).

Doctrine can develop. But the Church can never, in practice, have ever have contradicted a developed doctrine.

The fact that the priesthood was NOT always organized as it is today…is proof that today’s way of organizing it is unessential to the priesthood.

Will you condemn the Ethiopians? Tell me that. Will you say their model of the priesthood is wrong? It works for them…

The way I hear it put is that the priest has to be Christ for the people wherever he is.

The way I hear it, that’s true for all Christians.

Especially for Pastors, perhaps. But not all priests need be Pastors.

separate for me the discipline and doctrine contained in Presbyterorum Ordinis. If you wish to deconstruct, do it constructively, not mere hack’n’slash.

Fine. You want specifics? The following are the only essential doctrines about Holy Orders binding on all Catholics:

Holy Order is a true and proper Sacrament which was instituted by Christ. (De fide.)​

The four Minor Orders and the Subdiaconate are not Sacraments but merely Sacramentals. (Sent. Communior.)​

The consecration of priests is a Sacrament. (De fide.)​

The consecration of a Bishop is a Sacrament. (Sent. certa.)​

Bishops are superior to priests. (De fide.)​

The Order of Diaconate is a Sacrament. (Sent. certa.)​

The matter of the Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopate is the imposition of hands alone. (Sent. fidei proxima).​

The handing over (traditio) of the instruments is not necessary for the validity of the consecration of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. (Sent. fidei proxima.)​

The form of the Order of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop consists solely in the words which more closely determine the imposition of the hands. (Sent. fidei proxima.)​

The Sacrament of Order confers sanctifying grace on the recipient. (De fide.) Cf. D843a, 959,964.​

The Sacrament of Order imprints a character on the recipient. (De fide.)​

The Sacrament of Order confers a permanent spiritual power on the recipient. (De fide.) Cf. D960 et seq.​

The ordinary dispenser of all grades of Order, both the sacramental and the non-sacramental, is the validly consecrated bishop alone. (De fide.)​

The extraordinary dispenser of the four Minor Orders and of the Order of the Subdiaconate is the presbyter. (Sent. certa.)​

The Sacrament of Order can be validly received by a baptised person of the male sex only. (Sent. certa.) CIC 968, Par. 1.​

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

The third could be considered the most important, and that is intent. I’ve heard that included in intent is wanting to do what the Church wants. And to know the intent it takes training in theology, history, and philosophy.

No. Because the intent is general not specific. Even a non-believer can have valid intent. Because the intent is “to do whatever it is that the Church does in preforming this action, whatever that may be”. You need to intend to DO what the Church DOES. You do NOT need to intend to do what the Church intends.

See the Summa (especially the Reply to Objection 1):
newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article9

And that is straight “ends justifies the means”. Even one rogue priest is too many because he has the ability to mislead hundreds away from the Church and the truth. That is the other reason why the training is so strict and hard, because only those who truly want to follow through with their vocation will come out in the end, and that makes for a better Church.

Hardly. It’s not about ends justifying the means. It’s about the benefits justifying the risks. NO amount of training can guarantee 100% that a priest won’t leave or go schismatic (in fact 20000 laicized priests are in the US right now, compared to only 50000 active). So, at that point, it’s a question of whether the chances are outweighed by the benefits of the model you adopt.

 

[CDNowak]

Then what of the canonical barriers you claimed were inherent in our model? I mean, if priests can do all those things you listed…why must he be Salaried by the diocese in a parish assignment? Couldn’t he work as a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, in business, etc…all the while saying his breviary, and volunteering at a parish to help take one of the Masses on Sunday, hear confessions, etc?

I didn’t bring up the canonical difficulties, but:
Canon 265:

Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.

and following canons through 289.

Actually priests being given duties other than parish duties is all too common. I could continue with widely known ones if you like: Fr Vosko, … Really, I think you guys have failed to do your research (take it from one who started down that road).

Newborn:

Will you condemn the Ethiopians? Tell me that. Will you say their model of the priesthood is wrong? It works for them…

Are we talking Ge’ez, Coptic, Orthodox, Latin Rite? From the accounts of the Eritrean Monks that I lived with (E. being formerly part of Ethiopia, one was in a monastery on the wrong side of the tribal line and had to flee), this seems misleading at best.

Newborn:

Fine. You want specifics? The following are the only essential doctrines about Holy Orders binding on all Catholics:

No, I asked you to deconstruct a particular document, not quote bullet point reduced from Ott. You are not operating in a vacuum, nor in nebulous Catholicism, but in the particular Churches (Latin, I am presuming, since we are the only ones who have a need to specify
traditional’), with particular law, particular customs, and discipline.

 

[curlycool89]

Then what of the canonical barriers you claimed were inherent in our model? I mean, if priests can do all those things you listed…why must he be Salaried by the diocese in a parish assignment? Couldn’t he work as a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, in business, etc…all the while saying his breviary, and volunteering at a parish to help take one of the Masses on Sunday, hear confessions, etc?

Because bishops need priests to be committed to a parish, which is because there’s not enough priests as it is to have a bunch of half-time priests floating around.

Bishop’s aren’t going to accept people who only want to work “part time” as a priest probably because there’s a big doubt that they actually have a vocation to the priesthood at all. Who does and doesn’t have a vocation is not for individuals to decide, but for the Church to decide (which means a Bishop for a secular priest, and religious order’s decide who has a vocation to be a religious and then later if they have a vocation to their priesthood in whatever way’s they do).

 

[Newborn]

Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.

We would be incardinated in a dioceses. Incardination doesn’t have to mean much in practice, though, as your examples prove.

Because bishops need priests to be committed to a parish, which is because there’s not enough priests as it is to have a bunch of half-time priests floating around.

And they’ll have fewer and fewer if they’re stubborn. I believe, however, that God will make everything work out.

Are we talking Ge’ez, Coptic, Orthodox, Latin Rite? From the accounts of the Eritrean Monks that I lived with (E. being formerly part of Ethiopia, one was in a monastery on the wrong side of the tribal line and had to flee), this seems misleading at best.

Orthodox. The same ones with the boy-deacons.

Makes us Westerners uncomfortable, for sure. But that is a valid expression.

No, I asked you to deconstruct a particular document, not quote bullet point reduced from Ott.

You asked what was doctrine and what wasn’t. Anything that isn’t one of those dogmas…is not essential.

You are not operating in a vacuum, nor in nebulous Catholicism, but in the particular Churches (Latin, I am presuming, since we are the only ones who have a need to specify traditional’), with particular law, particular customs, and discipline.

Particular Laws that can and do, and will, change. We can’t disobey them while they exist. But we can sure as hell advocate and agitate for them to change.

 

[Young_Thinker]

There is really no such thing as a part-time priest, and neither he should have neglected education.

 

[curlycool89]

And they’ll have fewer and fewer if they’re stubborn. I believe, however, that God will make everything work out.

A few priests who give up their whole life to their vocation are worth a hundred times more than any “half-time” priest. I would rather have just a few of them then a whole host of pretenders.

 

[CDNowak]

We would be incardinated in a dioceses. Incardination doesn’t have to mean much in practice, though, as your examples prove.

If you want to be incarnated, then you cannot be an “independent contractor”. (Funny how my examples are meaningless in one post and prove so much in the next…)

Orthodox. The same ones with the boy-deacons.

Makes us Westerners uncomfortable, for sure. But that is a valid expression.

The Oriental Etheopian Orthodox Church is also miaphysiste (ie rejecting Chalecedon and the two distinct natures of Christ), is that also ‘valid’? It certainly is not Traditional in the Catholic sense. Their concept of the priesthood would take more study, but their model cannot be blindly accepted without examining their theology. (Let alone the possibility of the validity of ordination of “boy deacons”, or of subsequent marriages).

You asked what was doctrine and what wasn’t. Anything that isn’t one of those dogmas…is not essential.

I asked about a particular document because I have a feeling that it hasn’t been read, like canon law.

But we can sure as hell advocate and agitate for them to change.

(emphasis mine)

Tu dicis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

In the United States you also must look at the Program for Priestly Formation, fifth edition all bishops and orders within the United States are bound by this document and follow it.

 

[Newborn]

In the United States you also must look at the Program for Priestly Formation, fifth edition all bishops and orders within the United States are bound by this document and follow it

It was approved by the bishops and received the approbation of the Holy See, to be sure, but I’m not sure if that means it is a binding order that only the Vatican could change. It may be, I don’t know, I’d have to look into the canonical question more.

But I do know that the USCCB in itself cannot bind individual bishops in their own dioceses, as Bishop Martino once made abundantly clear when he said, “No USCCB document applies in this dioceses” and he is correct. Except for the Pope, the bishops are sovereign in their own dioceses.

If you want to be incarnated, then you cannot be an “independent contractor”.

What I mean is, the bishop you are incardinated with could give you free-range.

He could give you permission to simply take another job instead of working a salaried pastoral assignment, or agree to let you take an assignment at a parish for limited stints, or agree to let you work in whatever diocese you want as long as that other bishop approves (like in a religious order that can send men across diocesan boundaries, or those foreign priests who come to help fill the gap in the US). He’d have to “approve” everything, of course, at least tacitly…but he could be very “hands off”. As they are with some priests (like Fr Z apparently).

I know that up until after Vatican II…there was a class of priests (I believe Malachi Martin became one after he left the Jesuits) who got their faculties directly from the Vatican and then pretty much just did their own thing. And retired priests certainly are pretty much free to do what they want. Why couldnt we have something like those?

he Oriental Etheopian Orthodox Church is also miaphysiste (ie rejecting Chalecedon and the two distinct natures of Christ), is that also ‘valid’?

“In their 1984 Common Declaration, Pope John Paul II and Syrian Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas stated that past schisms and divisions concerning the doctrine of the incarnation “in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith” because the disputes arose from differences in terminology and culture.”

Which is true. It turns out it was all a big semantical misunderstanding. Hence why “miaphysitism” is different than “monophysitism”

It’s just a question of the terminology, but the Joint Declaration pretty much cleared that up. I think we can all agree now to say something like, “The nature of Christ is to have a human nature and a divine nature”. Just two different shades of meaning of the term “nature”…a problem only exacerbated by the language difference.

Let alone the possibility of the validity of ordination of “boy deacons”, or of subsequent marriages.

It only takes being a baptized male to be ordained. And especially after the age of reason, the ordination of these young males as deacons is certainly valid. Whether it is a good idea…we can debate, but it is certainly valid.

Likewise for subsequent marriages. It has been the general tradition in the Roman and Byzantine churches not to let men get married AFTER ordination, even when married men have been allowed to be ordained.

But, this obviously isnt of the Deposit of Faith or essential to the sacramental theology…because exceptions have always been made, and exceptions can only be made to discipline, not dogma. The Byzantines sometimes will allow widower priests with young children to get remarried, and we certainly recognize the validity of the marriages of legitimately laicized priests (who are still priests). So that is certainly a possible model. It is certainly not automatically invalid by any universal dogmatic principle.

Your comments are highly Latin-centric and don’t bode well for the ecumenical process. But it is happening, sooner than we might think, and when it does…the Roman Church isn’t going to be able to demand that they stop these practices. Then what will you do? Then you’re going to have to accept them and respect them.

 

[Newborn]

A few priests who give up their whole life to their vocation are worth a hundred times more than any “half-time” priest. I would rather have just a few of them then a whole host of pretenders.

But you can have both!

It’s not like our model would cause the first kind not to exist, merely supplement them. There would still be plenty of people who would choose to be full-time pastors, surely.

You’re making the Perfect the enemy of the Good.

However, I would also really question the notion that “giving up your whole life” and the current model…have anything to do with each other.

Yes, we want dedicated effective priests, but I just see no particular connection between the tight-leash or burden of bureaucracy…and dedication or effectiveness.

The current barriers to entry do not particularly correlate with holiness, dedication, competence, effectiveness, etc. If they did, we wouldnt be in the situation we’re in. You speak as if the current system is churning out Saints or if there is something intrinsically holy about it. It just isnt.

Plenty of diocesan priests work only a few hours a day, go golfing, take their vacation time, retire as soon as they can, etc. They just have to do it within all this annoying and needless bureaucracy and institutionalism which makes it very unappealing for independent or creative leader types of personalities.

You can say, “But the priesthood isn’t like just another profession!” until the cows come home. But I see no connection between that idea and the current model, wherein frankly it IS treated like a career, just with a lot more annoying bureaucracy and institutional hindrances.

I see no reason to assume that a priest with a more independent lifestyle wouldnt be dedicated. If anything, working a job to support yourself AND volunteering to minister in your free time…seems even *more *dedicated to me. To me, our model shows that the priesthood “isnt just a career” BETTER than the current model, exactly because the priest would be already working a separate career. I think that line is much more easily blurred under the current model, where the clergy serves also as his economic livelihood and hence can tend to be subsumed into the idea of a job, career, or occupation. Whereas putting it on an independent volunteer basis, like with permanent deacons…shows that it is something other than that.

So even assuming you “theology of the priesthood” that “sets him apart”…I don’t necessarily see any connection between that idea, and the current model. Why the current model manifests that idea anymore than ours. I just dont see it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But you can have both!

Maybe its that we do not want both?

We already have what you are talking about, it is called the permanent diaconate.

You seem to be treating the priesthood as only a job, it is that but it is more.

Seems that there is a wish to get out of some of the promise of obedience here and have more personal power.

And I still can’t get over the grave lack of understanding of the Sacraments. That alone proves that more education is necessary.

As for the PPF, 5th ed., every Catholic Major Seminary has followed it, so to enter any Catholic Major Seminary as a candidate for ordination you must have 30 credits of philosophy and 12 credits of theology that is approved of by that Seminary.

Also to be ordained in the USA you must have completed the Master of Divinity or have a Pontifical degree.

 

[KKPG]

The bit about “being willing to wear the collar” - most priests I’ve ever met couldn’t WAIT to wear the collar. This isn’t a favor you’d be doing us - it’s supposed to be an incredible calling - something you are called to do by God, and you respond out of love for God and pursue the priesthood. It’s not this idea that you’d be “willing to do it IF…”

 

[Ocarm]

But I do know that the USCCB in itself cannot bind individual bishops in their own dioceses, as Bishop Martino once made abundantly clear when he said, “No USCCB document applies in this dioceses” and he is correct. Except for the Pope, the bishops are sovereign in their own dioceses.

That’s not actually true. There are certain canonical matters that do need the permission of a bishop’s conference before an individual bishop can enact them in his diocese. However, the permission of the conference does not always require that the bishop enact the matter according to the mandate.

In other words, the bishop cannot do X unless the conference has decided that X is permitted within the jurisdiction of the conference. However, just because permission has been granted does not mean that the bishop is obliged to do X, and so has a power of veto in his own diocese.

This means that he can refuse to follow specific recommendations of the conference, but he cannot always innovate practice in his own diocese without their permission, and if he chooses not to exercise a mandate, he remains bound by universal church law i.e. the 1983 code of canon law and related universal documents. It doesn’t mean he has a free hand to do as he wishes.

I presume that Bishop Martino did not wish to enact mandates of the USCCB that he felt were unnecessary, and on particular matters he is entitled to so act.

By the way, Newborn, I tried to respond to your email but the CAF software told me that you don’t wish to receive mails via the administrators. Since I don’t choose to reveal my email address to members of the forum, (nothing personal, its the same with everyone!) I’d better state here that I can’t and wouldn’t wish to enter into a lengthy discussion off-forum. I have permission to post here on CAF, but not to enter into dialogues elsewhere indiscriminately. Consecrated life is like that sometimes, especially when you’re in simple vows.

Best wishes.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Joining a Third Order or the like is far better than trying to become a half-time clergyman or one with “dubious” qualifications.

 

[Newborn]

We already have what you are talking about, it is called the permanent diaconate.

And our point is that, in practice, celibate permanent deacons do almost everything a priest does except those three sacraments. Why they require all this added bureaucracy and institutionalism, is beyond me.

You seem to be treating the priesthood as only a job, it is that but it is more.

I addressed this in the post above. This accusation makes no sense, as if I was treating the priesthood as a job, why would I not want to get paid, why would I want to work another job?

It is the *current *structure which turns the priesthood into simply a career. Just an incredibly bureaucratic one.

Seems that there is a wish to get out of some of the promise of obedience here and have more personal power.

Again, I see no real connection between the annoying bureaucracy and the promise of obedience, except that current priests are bound to obey the annoying bureaucracy, which is a tautology as my whole point is that they could get rid of that institutionalism involved.

I’m not sure how everyone is imagining diocesan priests live, but this obedience everyone speaks of is hardly invoked. Trust me, I’ve shadowed my share of diocesan priests, and I just kept thinking, “they need to live like they’re in prison for 5 years to do THIS?”

There is no connection between the lofty notions about the priesthood you keep pushing and reality, and there is also no connection between the current system and those ideals. All the petty rules and intra-institutional politics and bureaucratic bogging-down…haven’t actually accomplished any of the things you’re talking about.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And our point is that, in practice, celibate permanent deacons do almost everything a priest does except those three sacraments. Why they require all this added bureaucracy and institutionalism, is beyond me.

You need to study more on what the diaconate is and how it differs from the priesthood.

This shows the grave misunderstanding of all the Sacraments not just Holy Orders.

It seems you are stuck with the notion that a deacon is a junior priest.

A deacon can not do “almost everything a priest does” as the only Sacraments a Deacon my preside at are Baptism and Marriage in the Latin Catholic Church. I do not get where it is only “three” that he can not do.

In the Eastern Churches a Deacon can not preside at Baptism or Marriage, nor can he give a blessing as a priest, he still blesses as a lay person.

I’m not sure how everyone is imagining diocesan priests live, but this obedience everyone speaks of is hardly invoked. Trust me, I’ve shadowed my share of diocesan priests, and I just kept thinking, “they need to live like they’re in prison for 5 years to do THIS?”

You seem to be all over the place, is it the academics or the formation aspect of the current Seminary model you do not like?