I feel the Pope should let Priests get Married

[Wesrock]

I have followed the discussion with interest.

I choose, however, to limit my contribution to saying that the decision to alter the discipline for the West rests solely with the Magisterium. As when the Council Fathers at Vatican II supported the initiative to restore the permanent diaconate in the Western Church and to open it to men who were married and Blessed Paul VI did so, the decision rests with the Holy Father motu proprio or acting with the College of Bishops. As a theologian and priest coming to the twilight of his life, I have confidence they will correctly discern the movement of the Spirit on this issue. My own personal thoughts are irrelevant…only theirs are relevant and, most importantly, dispositive.

I trust the Magisterium and will of course abide by and defend it’s position. What has lately been concerning to me is to here fellow Catholics speak of disciplines lightly. While of course there is a distinction between dogma, doctrine, and discipline, I’ve come to feel more strongly in the value and importance of tradition, big or little T. While discipline is certainly not an absolute, at the same time I feel it should not be treated lightly, because “it’s only a discipline.” There also seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this particular discipline and it’s history, too.

But ultimately, I know the decision doesn’t rest with me or you or anyone else in this topic, and it is my desire to submit myself to the authority of the Magisterium, and not my own opinion on the matter.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

1. Please note my corrected post numbering in evidence.
2. We don’t need excuses we need the reality of facts. Continued confusion can be removed only by the facts.
3. The Apostolic Norm from the beginning was unilaterally overthrown at Trullo.

The book of Corinthians says otherwise and so does Clement of Alexandria. 1 Corinthians 9:5.

 

[Wesrock]

The book of Corinthians says otherwise and so does Clement of Alexandria. 1 Corinthians 9:5.

Perhaps the tradition did not start until the third century or so. However, I’m not sure you provided the best sources to defend your position. I’m going to quote Clement of Alexandria. He was writing in defense of marriage against those who “revile” it, who scorn it and claim sex is *always * unnatural and contrary to the law. However, note that he does not say that Peter or Philip engaged in marital relations with their wives after starting their ministry. Also, Clement makes the point I would make in regards to 1 Corinthians 9:5, so I’ll just let him speak for me.

1. How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food. And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. “He who does not eat,” then, “let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him.” Moreover, the Lord says of himself: “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner.” Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.

1. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that “the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink,” not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, “but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John’s gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator .

People speak of no evidence prior to the fourth century or so, but Tertullien and Origen spoke of it. And what do we have here in Clement of Alexandria? “But **in accordance with their particular ministry **. . .”

 

[otjm]

Giving it up as the norm, of course. Yes, there are Latin rite priests who are married – but these are the exception rather than the rule. You’re asking for this to become normative; and thus, the question is “why change the norm – what does it achieve?”

We disagree; if you want to call ordaining married men a change to the norm - then it is already changed. What does it achieve? What does ordaining a converted Presbyterian minister achieve? In our Archdiocese, the answer is an awesome priest.

Agreed: and still, the question is what positive effect will that have? The Church sees clerical celibacy as a good thing – what is it about that stance that you propose is wrong?

I have never, ever said celibacy is not a good thing. That is a red herring. We are already ordaining married men. I suggest we open that to married Catholic men. It is not like this is earth shaking. And as to the whining about how much time… I ahve already addressed that; one possible solution would be similar to what we are already doing as in the case of married deacons. Again, not earth shattering.

Absolutely nothing: but that’s not what’s in play here.

Sorry, that is a cop out. Ordaining convert ministers is exactly what is in play. You proposed the question - what problem does ordaining married men solve and I answered it - perhaps you did not understand the answer so I will say it differently: ordaining Catholic men answers the same “problem” that ordaining converted ministers answers. Neither “answers” a “problem”. Both can and one does the same thing as ordaining a celibate priest - it provides the Church with a priest.

Your question makes as much sense as asking “what problem does ordaining a monk solve?”. They don’t ordain monks to “solve” problems".

When one’s ordinary assigns a priest to that work? Absolutely. It’s a completely different case than when a person goes out on his own and finds a job.

At age 40+, the extreme likelihood is they already ahve one for 15 years or better. Non issue.

Hmm… you seem to be proposing setting up a system that creates two “classes” of priests. That doesn’t sound beneficial to the unity of the presbyterate – the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ would be at odds with one another, it would seem…

A Google search on ‘worker-priests’ will turn up a number of sources for you to read.

It failed because, quite naturally, priests became involved in various political and social movements of the day, given their positions in the secular workplace. In effect, they identified more strongly with their ‘day jobs’ than with their vocation to the priesthood. In that sense, then, the notion of having a cadre of priests with ‘day jobs’ was a dismal failure – not because of “how it was done”, but because of the way people are; we have likes and dislikes, preferences and affinities to various causes celebre. Inasmuch as these might be groups or issues that are inappropriate for a representative of the Church to support, this creates opportunities for scandal. That’s why it’s a bad idea.

The failure was time and place specific, and I would hardly hold up France as proof of much of anything except a country about as politically sundered as the US - or more so. I don’t recall too many Royalists in the US. And the last time I had any contact with the left wing in France, they made the socialists in our Democratic party look junior league. Not that the Dem.s aren’t trying. Very trying…

But your dismissal and reasons are a bit facile, in light of the fact that we have a married deaconate which does not seem to be having this problem. We are also talking about 65 to 75 years or more later.

 

[Abu]

JB Brother 4446 #121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu

1. Please note my corrected post numbering in evidence.
2. We don’t need excuses we need the reality of facts. Continued confusion can be removed only by the facts.
3. The Apostolic Norm from the beginning was unilaterally overthrown at Trullo.
   The book of Corinthians says otherwise and so does Clement of Alexandria. 1 Corinthians 9:5.

The continued misrepresentation shows clearly the lack of knowledge of the reality. JB Brother 4446 was informed of this in post #22 in the thread **Which 12 Apostles were married?
**

1. As Wesrock points out: People speak of no evidence prior to the fourth century or so, but Tertullien and Origen spoke of it. And what do we have here in Clement of Alexandria? “But in accordance with their particular ministry . . .”
2. See:
   **Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
   Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D. **
   cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…stly-celibacy/
   “St. Paul insisted that he had an equal right with the other apostles “to be accompanied by a wife [on his journeys]” (1 Cor. 9:5). The Greek word translated “wife” means “sister woman” or “sister wife.” The word does not refer to a wife in the ordinary sense. Rather, it refers to a woman who served the apostles, providing for them as they carried on their ministry. Scripture several times refers to the women who cared for them.

Further, as Cardinal Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife.
**Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method **
The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995)]
ignatiusinsight.com/featu…bacy_mar07.asp

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy “which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. **The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ **(Foreword to Cochini’s book).”

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The continued misrepresentation shows clearly the lack of knowledge of the reality. JB Brother 4446 was informed of this in post #22 in the thread **Which 12 Apostles were married?
**

1. As Wesrock points out: People speak of no evidence prior to the fourth century or so, but Tertullien and Origen spoke of it. And what do we have here in Clement of Alexandria? “But in accordance with their particular ministry . . .”
2. See:
   **Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
   Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D. **
   cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…stly-celibacy/
   “St. Paul insisted that he had an equal right with the other apostles “to be accompanied by a wife [on his journeys]” (1 Cor. 9:5). The Greek word translated “wife” means “sister woman” or “sister wife.” The word does not refer to a wife in the ordinary sense. Rather, it refers to a woman who served the apostles, providing for them as they carried on their ministry. Scripture several times refers to the women who cared for them.

Further, as Cardinal Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife.
**Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method **
The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995)]
ignatiusinsight.com/featu…bacy_mar07.asp

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy “which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. **The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ **(Foreword to Cochini’s book).”

That is only one priest’s interpretation you give me as a source. Clement of Alexandia may favor celibacy BUT he still reports that Peter traveled with his wife. And for the record, Philip the deacon is recorded to have 4 daughters. When someone doesn’t agree with your interpretation of Scipture, you call them ignorant. Am I seeing a trend here?

 

[Wesrock]

That is only one priest’s interpretation you give me as a source. Clement of Alexandia may favor celibacy BUT he still reports that Peter traveled with his wife. And for the record, Philip the deacon is recorded to have 4 daughters. When someone doesn’t agree with your interpretation of Scipture, you call them ignorant. Am I seeing a trend here?

Does Clement advise that Peter had relations with the wife he traveled with after he started his ministry? Or that Phillip did? I may have missed that. I could only find reference to children. Clement directly advises that the apostles who traveled with “wives” did not have marriage relations with them, but that the women were present so that they may enter the women’s quarters of households to preach, tend, and not cause scandal.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Does Clement advise that Peter had relations with the wife he traveled with after he started his ministry? Or that Phillip did? I may have missed that. I could only find reference to children. Clement directly advises that the apostles who traveled with “wives” did not have marriage relations with them, but that the women were present so that they may enter the women’s quarters of households to preach, tend, and not cause scandal.

Well, the daughters of Philip are mentioned AFTER he goes to Caesarea. So yes that implies that Philip took a wife and had children after the Ethiopian incident.

 

[Abu]

JB Brother 4446 #125
That is only one priest’s interpretation you give me as a source.
When someone doesn’t agree with your interpretation of Scipture, you call them ignorant. Am I seeing a trend here?

The closed mindset and the reluctance to follow the sensus fidei “to think with the Church” is amply in evidence as JB Brother 4446 tries to force the fallacy that an Apostle or two lived sexually, if they had a wife!

The first truth is that Scripture is interpreted by the Church, and on continence from the first, the recent evidence is overwhelming of the Apostolic Norm of continence.

1) In post #124:
**Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D. **
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…stly-celibacy/

2) In post # 103:
The apostolic origin of priestly celibacy. Father Wojciech Giertych, OP
The Priest 8/1/2011

3) In post #67:
From Josef Cardinal Ratzinger himself who became Pope Benedict XVI:
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, *The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations *(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
Notes
10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements.” Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.

4) In post #64:
“….the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms (that) the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”, and cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…estly-celibacy

5) In post #58:
The Apostolic Norm was recognized by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in Non latet (1858):
“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
[Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628].
canonlaw.info/a_deacons.h…ra_Congregatio

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The closed mindset and the reluctance to follow the sensus fidei “to think with the Church” is amply in evidence as JB Brother 4446 tries to force the fallacy that an Apostle or two lived sexually, if they had a wife!

The first truth is that Scripture is interpreted by the Church, and on continence from the first, the recent evidence is overwhelming of the Apostolic Norm of continence.

1) In post #124:
**Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D. **
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…stly-celibacy/

2) In post # 103:
The apostolic origin of priestly celibacy. Father Wojciech Giertych, OP
The Priest 8/1/2011

3) In post #67:
From Josef Cardinal Ratzinger himself who became Pope Benedict XVI:
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, *The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations *(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
Notes
10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements.” Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.

4) In post #64:
“….the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms (that) the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”, and cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…estly-celibacy

5) In post #58:
The Apostolic Norm was recognized by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in Non latet (1858):
“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
[Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628].
canonlaw.info/a_deacons.h…ra_Congregatio

When are you going to answer my last post?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, the daughters of Philip are mentioned AFTER he goes to Caesarea. So yes that implies that Philip took a wife and had children after the Ethiopian incident.

Moreover, St. Caesarius was born some two or three years after his father, St. Gregory the Elder, was ordained bishop.

 

[Sarcelle]

Who is confused? You seem only interested in a particular set of facts.

I think we also need to deal with the facts as they are today, and not only reach into antiquity.

The Catholic Church ordains married men. The Catholic Church has done so for centuries. It is the norm in several Churches within the Catholic communion. Those priests serve their parishioners with dedication and holiness. Celibacy (in the monastic life) is highly esteemed and encouraged.

The Latin Church ordains married men, in exceptional circumstances. It has done so on an increasing basis for decades now. Those priests serve with dedication and holiness. Celibacy remains the norm and will in all likelihood continue to do so.

Those who have the authority to make these decisions (the bishops in union with the Pope) do not do so lightly. You and I do not have such authority.

Well said.

 

[Gorgias]

We disagree; if you want to call ordaining married men a change to the norm - then it is already changed.

We are already ordaining married men.

As an exception, yes. As a pastoral concession to men who had been ministers in other traditions and even then, only under certain circumstances which are scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.

What does it achieve? What does ordaining a converted Presbyterian minister achieve? In our Archdiocese, the answer is an awesome priest.

And, in that case, it works. I’m not asking what ordaining a converted Protestant minister ‘achieves’ – we’ve already established that. I’m asking (for the second (?) time): what does abandoning celibacy as the norm in the Latin Rite presbyterate achieve?

I have never, ever said celibacy is not a good thing. That is a red herring.

Fair enough; what you have said, though, is that it shouldn’t be the norm. That seems to suggest that you feel it is not necessary – not good enough, as it were – to be the normative practice in the Latin Rite Church. Why is that?

I suggest we open that to married Catholic men.

Again: why? Simply to increase the number of priests?

Sorry, that is a cop out. Ordaining convert ministers is exactly what is in play. You proposed the question - what problem does ordaining married men solve and I answered it - perhaps you did not understand the answer so I will say it differently: ordaining Catholic men answers the same “problem” that ordaining converted ministers answers. Neither “answers” a “problem”. Both can and one does the same thing as ordaining a celibate priest - it provides the Church with a priest.

There we go. Thank you! The only thing you’re dealing in, then, is the ‘numbers problem’. Not the viability of a man to be formed as a priest or to live that lifestyle, but rather, just to make sure that there are more men wearing collars. But, saying this means implicitly what I’ve been charging: you feel that celibacy is not of value – or, at the very least, not of as much value as putting more men in the sanctuary. The Church disagrees with you.

Your question makes as much sense as asking “what problem does ordaining a monk solve?”. They don’t ordain monks to “solve” problems".

Actually, they do. Read up on Church history a bit.

Originally, there were no consecrated religious priests. That was a later development, when it became obvious that there were problems with having local secular priests minister both to his congregation and the local abbey. The solution to this problem was to ordain monks as priests, and have them be under the authority of the abbot (not the local ordinary). In other words: Problem. Solution.

At age 40+, the extreme likelihood is they already ahve one for 15 years or better. Non issue.

No – the issue is that they would have two completely unrelated chains of command: the Church hierarchy, and their secular management. Have you ever worked for two managers in different departments? It’s a mess.

The failure was time and place specific

No, the failure happened in a time and in a place (as all things do!), but the problems weren’t specific to France or the period of time. The problems were that the priests became entrenched in secular movements and secular authorities and then, when told to cease and desist by the Church, many refused to listen. That’s a big problem, and it isn’t just a “French problem” or a “20th century problem.”

But your dismissal and reasons are a bit facile, in light of the fact that we have a married deaconate which does not seem to be having this problem.

Apples and oranges. Deacons are not priests. Deacons are not pastors.

This is not a facile dismissal – it’s an observation that this would be sea-change, and its effects cannot be evaluated simply by pointing to a tiny minority of married converts to the faith or to another type of ordained ministry. Moreover, the proposal blithely dismisses the value of celibacy in the presbyterate – an issue you refuse to consider or even discuss.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That is only one priest’s interpretation you give me as a source. Clement of Alexandia may favor celibacy BUT he still reports that Peter traveled with his wife. And for the record, Philip the deacon is recorded to have 4 daughters. When someone doesn’t agree with your interpretation of Scipture, you call them ignorant. Am I seeing a trend here?

The raw materials with which Our Lord had to work were all or mostly married men. If these men were married before being called to ministry by Our Lord, what were they supposed to do? Divorce their wives?

I do not believe the biblical model of this should be regarded as absolutely normative.

For whatever it’s worth, I’m neutral on celibacy. If the policy changes, it changes. If celibacy remains the norm, it remains the norm. I’m not invested in either outcome.

 

[Abu]

Review of *Priestly Celibacy Today *by Fr Thomas McGovern, a priest of Opus Dei
**“A comprehensive defence of celibacy”: Review by Fr Tom Norris **
“The atmosphere today is thick with the dust of the great celibacy debate. Unfortunately, that debate is often more conspicuous for its fire than for its light. Sometimes the facts of Church history and the truth of things seem to matter but little to some of the debaters.

“Who has not heard ad nauseam the claim that the celibacy of priests is merely a matter of Church law, without any apostolic traditions or Gospel foundations, and imposed on the priestly ministry only in this millennium?

“Or the claim that in the first millennium there were married bishops, priests and deacons, so that ordination did not affect their conjugal life if already married, nor prevent them from marrying if not yet married? ln the debate these claims are in control of the public square in spite of the fact that in each case the opposite happens to be the truth!

“Interestingly, following the splendid historical research already provided by Cochini, Stickler and others, Fr McGovern shows that from the most ancient times those ordained were not allowed to marry subsequently, while those already married had to live as brother and sister upon the reception of Holy Orders.”
Fr Tom Norris lectures at St Patricks College, Maynooth.
This review first appeared in the 15 April 1999 issue of Irish Catholic.
christendom-awake.org/pag…n/reviews.html

religionfacts.com/apostle
According to Clement of Alexandria, Peter and Philip were married and had children, and Paul probably did, too. Their wives traveled with the apostles “not as wives, but as sisters, in order to minister to housewives” Clement also reports that Peter’s wife was martyred before him, and the apostle encouraged her as she was led to her death.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Review of *Priestly Celibacy Today *by Fr Thomas McGovern, a priest of Opus Dei
**“A comprehensive defence of celibacy”: Review by Fr Tom Norris **
“The atmosphere today is thick with the dust of the great celibacy debate. Unfortunately, that debate is often more conspicuous for its fire than for its light. Sometimes the facts of Church history and the truth of things seem to matter but little to some of the debaters.

“Who has not heard ad nauseam the claim that the celibacy of priests is merely a matter of Church law, without any apostolic traditions or Gospel foundations, and imposed on the priestly ministry only in this millennium?

“Or the claim that in the first millennium there were married bishops, priests and deacons, so that ordination did not affect their conjugal life if already married, nor prevent them from marrying if not yet married? ln the debate these claims are in control of the public square in spite of the fact that in each case the opposite happens to be the truth!

“Interestingly, following the splendid historical research already provided by Cochini, Stickler and others, Fr McGovern shows that from the most ancient times those ordained were not allowed to marry subsequently, while those already married had to live as brother and sister upon the reception of Holy Orders.”
Fr Tom Norris lectures at St Patricks College, Maynooth.
This review first appeared in the 15 April 1999 issue of Irish Catholic.
christendom-awake.org/pag…n/reviews.html

religionfacts.com/apostle
According to Clement of Alexandria, Peter and Philip were married and had children, and Paul probably did, too. Their wives traveled with the apostles “not as wives, but as sisters, in order to minister to housewives” Clement also reports that Peter’s wife was martyred before him, and the apostle encouraged her as she was led to her death.

And in the East married men are allowed to become priests. However, for the reasons mentioned above, they cannot become bishops. Jesus’ apostles were all married with the exception of the youngest apostle, John.

 

[Corki]

And in the East married men are allowed to become priests. However, for the reasons mentioned above, they cannot become bishops. Jesus’ apostles were all married with the exception of the youngest apostle, John.

Nothing but conjecture. The only one we know for sure was married at one time was Peter.

 

[Abu]

Corki #136
Re: JB Brother 4446’s “Jesus’ apostles were all married with the exception of the youngest apostle, John.

Nothing but conjecture.

Absolutely, and interminably. One of “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.” [Iconoclast, William James].

**
THE LOGIC OF PRIESTLY CELIBACY
Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, S.T.D.
Published in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April 1995 **
‘”Sixteen hundred years ago, in the year 390, a group of Bishops was gathered at Carthage to discuss celibacy. Presumably, they had much the same problems with it as the clergy will always have. At the end of the session these Bishops renewed their resolution with memorable words: ‘What the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also continue.’ ”
ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/CELIBACY.HTM

See:
Celibacy Dates Back to the Apostles
by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, STD
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7052

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Absolutely, and interminably. One of “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.” [Iconoclast, William James].

**
THE LOGIC OF PRIESTLY CELIBACY
Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, S.T.D.
Published in Homiletic and Pastoral Review**, April 1995
‘”Sixteen hundred years ago, in the year 390, a group of Bishops was gathered at Carthage to discuss celibacy. Presumably, they had much the same problems with it as the clergy will always have. At the end of the session these Bishops renewed their resolution with memorable words: ‘What the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also continue.’ ”
ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/CELIBACY.HTM

See:
Celibacy Dates Back to the Apostles
by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, STD
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7052

I repeat the question I asked last thread: What about Philip?

 

[Corki]

I repeat the question I asked last thread: What about Philip?

How does Phillip equal “all of the apostles except John”?