If priestly celibacy is not a dogma, why can't it be changed?

[MacQ]

Not sure why you move off point and into abortion. The discussion is about priest celibacy.

In context, The point being made by the person I replied to was about a poll purporting to say what is popular among catholics. I pointed out politicians who claim to be catholic and yet support things that are decidedly NOT catholic…only as an example, not a new topic (heaven forbid ).
The point I was trying to make was: Polls can show anything you want them to. I find the ones cited to be suspect.
In any case, we don’t need a poll to see that right in front of our eyes and standing at microphones, there are “catholics” who don’t follow church teachings. That doesn’t change church teaching. Even if the poll is correct.

 

[MacQ]

I think the point is that popular opinion does not define what the Church teaches or finds acceptable.

:yup:
You said it better than I did.

:thankyou:

 

[SyroMalankara]

Funeral Homily for a remarkable married priest and his remarkable family, late Father Daniel Munn, may his memory be eternal:

July, 2006

Dear Father Munn,As I sit down to write this, I find myself at a loss as to what to say in such a short amount of time to honor yourmemory and bring glory to God in such a moment of such sadness in our lives, and yet also a moment of hopewhich springs eternal in the life of a believer. As I etch these words onto the canvass of this homily, I can hearyour voice echoing in my ear, “It’s not ABOUT me Timothy.” Perhaps the only way I can unravel the secret ofhow to tell the story of the Resurrection and touch on the life of your life is to work backwards. Let’s look at theday of your passing:You celebrated Mass here at Most Holy Trinity, and it was the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. THE two great converts to the Christian faith, whom you called the “bones and muscles” of Christianity. You sir, a great convert tothe Catholic faith, giving honor to the great converts of the early Church. The readings that day included a readingfrom 2 Timothy, which we have repeated in today’s liturgy, and Scripture provided these prophetic words: “…thetime of my departure is at hand. I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith. From now onthe crown of righteousness awaits me, which the Lord, the just judge, will award to me on that day, and not only tome, but to all who have longed for his appearance.” A convert to the faith honoring the greatest converts to thefaith in Peter and Paul. And how did you come to convert to the Catholic faith? You intimated to me that, of allthings, you were converted by Paul VI’s encyclical Humana Vitae. At a time when priests and nuns and lay Catho-lics were rejecting the document, you were converted by the eternal truths presented by this humble Pope in Rome.(We have another priest with us today, Fr. John Markham, who also converted to the faith because as a doctor, hesaw the consistent ethic of life presented in Church doctrine). Fr. Munn, you had a great love of the truth, and youalso believed in the great capacity of people to hear the truth. So many people would come to confession and say,“Fr. Munn told me to do this or do that…” and some would come in and say, “Fr. Munn was mean to me in confes-sion” to which I responded, “you mean, because he told you the truth about yourself?” The answer was always,“yes.” The truth hurts, and that’s why it IS the truth. True love consists in telling the truth. Thank you for that greatlove.The great truth we celebrate today is the truth of the dying and rising of Christ to new life. Death could not keepour Lord shackled, and he burst through to new life - resurrected life - on Easter morning. All of Creation thatcame before Him, and all of eternity that came after Him is redeemed by this power over death. We believe in faithin the power of Christ to raise you to new life today Fr. Munn, and we pray that the Lord in his goodness will over-look the foibles and traps that made you a human being, and welcome you into the kingdom prepared for you bythe Father in Heaven. Just as it looked like the ministry of Jesus ended in miserable failure on the cross, no onecould predict the good that would be wrought in his Resurrection from the dead. So the same with your priesthood:we never know the good we have planted, and when those seeds will come to fruition in the life of the faithful, forwe walk by faith, and not by sight. Just as the victory of the cross was a contradiction to those who looked uponthe dying Christ, so too was your life Father a contradiction in many ways ~ a married priest in the midst of a celibate priesthood; a man of deep piety and prayer who also enjoyed healthy language and ripe stories; and a man of Eastern mysticism and of Roman appetite.A married priest. It is said of a bishop that he has the “fullness” of Holy Orders. I always enjoyed our own Bishop’s reflection that he felt he had the fullness of Holy Orders as a priest and pastor. In many ways Fr. Munn, you had the fullness of priesthood as you were able to celebrate the Eucharist, and enjoy married life as well, and in this life, your marriage accomplished what every marriage is called to accomplish: your marriage pointed entirely to Christ. What a difficult vocation it must have been to be the wife of a priest, but we salute you Jan today for creat-ing a model of what it means to be the wife of a priest.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr. Munn, we know you were grateful that Jan joined her vocation of marriage to your vocation to the priesthood: it showed in the way that you loved each other. Central to that marriage; central to the life of the Church; central to your priesthood Fr. Munn was the Eucharist. The un-bloodied sacrifice of Jesus Christ which you offered to God the Most High. The words in the Gospel of John today reveal the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, “I am the Bread of Life…whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Central to the life of a priest is the celebration of the Eucharist, and Fr. Munn, you celebrated Christwith true reverence and sacred circumspection. Real presence on the altar; real presence in your marriage: all madepossible by the enduring power of the Resurrection.Having been here for only a year, I am constantly amazed at the number of people who knew you and whom received your counsel and the benefit of your wisdom and spirituality. You were the consummate wordsmith and artisan of the homiletic craft, and you always preached in ways that sparked the sacramental imagination of the faithful. Your homilies, your life as a priest, your marriage and family life all indicated the one thing that you tried to convey to us in your ministry: that it’s all true. That there was a Christ; that he suffered cruelly for us; that hedied for us; and that he rose from death and showed us the path to eternal life. The words you spoke in the Eucha-ristic prayer reveal that great truth and that abiding hope: “the blood of the NEW and EVERLASTING covenant” ~everlasting…for all time, in every age, forever and ever.We realize today in our gathering that your life, like every life, was an unfinished symphony. It is left to us to buildon that symphony and hand it over, uncompleted, to the next generation. The symphonies will remain unfinisheduntil Christ returns and brings harmony to all of creation. We are thankful to you today for making the symphonyof salvation sound that much sweeter to us through the gift of your priesthood. In spite of our faith and our greathope in eternal life, we do grieve and suffer. As you so often pointed out in your own funeral homilies, our tearsare a way of honoring your memory. When we suffer, we are reminded of the image of Christ on the cross, but werealize that there is an empty side to the cross - the empty side that we must hang on from time to time, and join inthe Lord’s suffering. Yet as we hang there in our sorrow, we realize that Christ is right behind us, and we know thatthe cross is only a temporary station, because Easter always follows Good Friday. Resurrection comes to thosewho suffer and yet believe. Your own belief Fr. Munn inspired and fostered our own belief. Many thanks for perse-vering in that faith, in spite of the many times you yourself must have hung on the empty side of the cross.We offer this celebration of the Eucharist for you today Fr. Munn, that the Christ you fed us with will now feedyou with the gift of eternal life. We trust in faith that He has received you, and that you are with us and praying forus now in ways beyond our understanding. Your departure from us is sorrowful, but only a temporary absence, aswe believe that we will see you again when we all gather at the feet of our Lord in Heaven; and we know this is allpossible because showed us his saving power by rising forever from the finality of death. Your departure from thislife was sudden and unexpected, but we pray that on the Feast of Sts.Peter and Paul, when the Lord came to receiveyou, that your soul heard the words that it has longed to hear from the moment of your baptism: "Well done, thougood and faithful servant!"Well done Father.Signed,Your devoted family and friends, and those whom you gave life to in Christ Jesus our Lord.P.S. Please say Hello to Deacon Ephraim for us. Amen.

By Father Timothy Donahue, Pastor
Catholic Church of the Most Holy Trinity, Augusta, Georgia

 

[Abu]

Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method
The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995)]
ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/stickler_celibacy_mar07.asp
“For ecclesiastical celibacy, we have a particularly clear and concise reference in the writings of one of the greatest of the Decretists – commentators on Gratian’s Decretum – who around 1140 collected and explained all the material concerning the juridical tradition of the first millennium of the Church.”

 

[porthos11]

Thank you for the explanation in layman’s language.

I wasn’t aware that Priests were allowed to get married in Eastern Catholicism, I just assumed that it was a doctrine.

Just to clarify.

the Church does not allow priests to get married anywhere, be it in the East or West. what the Church does is allow married men to be ordained. If you’re single when ordained, you’re celibate for life. Related to this is the fact that there are no married bishops anywhere in the Catholic Church, East or West. All bishops are celibate.

And while the discipline in the West is priestly celibacy, the discipline has indeed been relaxed for very special cases and even today, there are married Roman Catholic priests who do an excellent job with both their family and vocations.

 

[babochka]

Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method
The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995)]
ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/stickler_celibacy_mar07.asp
“For ecclesiastical celibacy, we have a particularly clear and concise reference in the writings of one of the greatest of the Decretists – commentators on Gratian’s Decretum – who around 1140 collected and explained all the material concerning the juridical tradition of the first millennium of the Church.”

You’ve cited a number of excellent scholarly studies and I appreciate that. This was a helpful article for explaining the research in a quick and clear format. I prefer the Magesterium of the Church, as exercised infallibly in the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, I refer you again to:

Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, commended by Christ the Lord and through the course of time as well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world. Indeed, it is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches, where, besides those who with all the bishops, by a gift of grace, choose to observe celibacy, there are also married priests of highest merit. This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.

Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16

 

[Abu]

The “practice” put forward in Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16, as “apparent” in the early Church which, appearing as such but not necessarily so, can now be understood as it is only since Vatican II (mid-1960’s) that the reality of the Apostolic Norm has been thoroughly identified – in the great scholarly studies of Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(1990); Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (1995); Fr. Stefan Heid, (2000). Nothing has been cited to disprove the facts in these erudite scholarly treatises.

All sound Catholic scholarship, as quoted, and backed up by stalwarts like Fr. George William Rutler, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Father Thomas McGovern of Opus Dei, and Jean Cardinal Daniélou has irrevocably shown continence to be the Apostolic norm and mandated.

Celibacy is fully supported in Pope Paul VI’s Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, (On The Celibacy Of The Priest) 1967, and St John Paul II’s Pastores Dabo Vobis (On The Formation Of Priests In The Circumstances Of The Present Day), 1992. Indeed, John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.”

 

[babochka]

The “practice” put forward in Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16, as “apparent” in the early Church which, appearing as such but not necessarily so, can now be understood as it is only since Vatican II (mid-1960’s) that the reality of the Apostolic Norm has been thoroughly identified – in the great scholarly studies of Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(1990); Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (1995); Fr. Stefan Heid, (2000). Nothing has been cited to disprove the facts in these erudite scholarly treatises.

ap·par·ent [uh-par-uh[URL]http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt[/URL], uh-pair-] adjective 1.readily seen; exposed to sight; open to view; visible: The crack in the wall was readily apparent.
2.capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious: The solution to the problem was apparent to all.
3.according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual: He was the apparent winner of the election.
4.entitled to a right of inheritance by birth, indefeasible except by one’s death before that of the ancestor, to an inherited throne, title, or other estate.

I contend that the proper definition in this context is number 1 or number 2, while you are assuming number 3.

It does not say “the apparent practice of the early Church”, which would be a clear utilization of definition number 3. It says “it is apparent from the practice of the early church.” Practice, in this sentence, is an unmodified noun. This sentence could be rendered “It is obvious from the practice of the early church” or “it is plain” or “it is clear”.

Nevertheless, you seem to reject a document of an ecumenical council in favor of recent scholarship. I don’t believe it is necessary that I attempt to disprove facts in the erudite scholarly treatises which you have referenced. It would not, in fact, be appropriate for me to attempt to do so, as I have not read said works. Again, though, I must ask: Why does it matter so much what the practice of the early church was when the Latin Church has felt free to change other apostolic practices regarding the sacraments? It is certainly within the authority of the church to change both the discipline of celibacy and the administration of the sacraments, as well as many other non-dogmatic aspects of the practice of our faith. Should we do this lightly, without sufficient reason and a strong deference to tradition? Of course not. But it is possible and the church in the east long ago decided to relax this discipline significantly, while maintaining tremendous respect for the high calling of celibacy. This is clearly within the authority of the church.

 

[Abu]

Review of Priestly Celibacy Today by Fr Thomas McGovern, a priest of Opus Dei
Why Priests are Single by Michael Keating
Extracts:
“True, a married clergy existed in both East and West in patristic and into medieval times, but it was expected of a married priest that once he was ordained, he would practice sexual abstinence and live with his wife as with a sister - an arrangement to which she had also to agree!

“This practice of abstinence, or continence as it was often called, was held by the patristic Church to have come directly from the apostles themselves. It was confirmed at the Council of Elvira in 303, which proclaimed that sexual abstinence was necessary for aIl clergy whether married or celibate, and that those who had neglected this rule were to be excluded from the clerical state.

“Clement of Jerusalem, Augustine, Jerome, the Council of Carthage (390) all witnessed to the same understanding. Only at the Council of Trullo in 691 did the East allow married priests to “use” their marriages, a ruling that was rejected by the Western Church as out of keeping with apostolic and traditional teaching.

“Even so, the Eastern Churches reserved the office of bishop to those who practiced perfect continence, and demanded temporary abstinence (eventually a three-day period) as preparation for priestly service at the altar. The East also maintained the tradition that a clergyman once ordained could not marry a stipulation which originally had to do with the inability of a priest to consummate such a marriage.”
This review first appeared in the 22 April 1999 issue of National Catholic Register.
This version: 17th January 2003
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/reviews.html

 

[SyroMalankara]

Review of Priestly Celibacy Today by Fr Thomas McGovern, a priest of Opus Dei
Why Priests are Single by Michael Keating
Extracts:
“True, a married clergy existed in both East and West in patristic and into medieval times, but it was expected of a married priest that once he was ordained, he would practice sexual abstinence and live with his wife as with a sister - an arrangement to which she had also to agree!

“This practice of abstinence, or continence as it was often called, was held by the patristic Church to have come directly from the apostles themselves. It was confirmed at the Council of Elvira in 303, which proclaimed that sexual abstinence was necessary for aIl clergy whether married or celibate, and that those who had neglected this rule were to be excluded from the clerical state.

“Clement of Jerusalem, Augustine, Jerome, the Council of Carthage (390) all witnessed to the same understanding. Only at the Council of Trullo in 691 did the East allow married priests to “use” their marriages, a ruling that was rejected by the Western Church as out of keeping with apostolic and traditional teaching.

“Even so, the Eastern Churches reserved the office of bishop to those who practiced perfect continence, and demanded temporary abstinence (eventually a three-day period) as preparation for priestly service at the altar. The East also maintained the tradition that a clergyman once ordained could not marry a stipulation which originally had to do with the inability of a priest to consummate such a marriage.”
This review first appeared in the 22 April 1999 issue of National Catholic Register.
This version: 17th January 2003
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/reviews.html

Do you have any sources other than Cochini, Stickler, and the now-retracted-Cholij? These statements and secondary writers seem to be citing the same folks which have been addressed previously. As to these comments on “the East”, the fact is, each Church had a variety of disciplines at various times, and places - there is no universal “the East”, so anyone writing about “the East” as a monolith entity, can be dismissed immediately. The Greek, Syriac, Chaldean, Armenian, Indian, etc practices varied even within regions and among bishops, so how can any writer state his interpretation of “the East” in regard to married clerics?? The Assyrian Church even considered reinstalling a Patriarch who resigned to marry, as late as the 1950s if I remember correctly, so these so-called stipulations are disproven time and again by practice.

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #164
The Assyrian Church even considered reinstalling a Patriarch who resigned to marry, as late as the 1950s if I remember correctly, so these so-called stipulations are disproven time and again by practice.

Such a statement shows the reality that the enormous research and facts revealed are still not understood by some who apparently find it difficult to accept facts which they previously did not know. The Apostolic Norm, continuing in the Latin Rite, was breached in the East at the Council of Trullo.

Naturally, after the breach, there would be no Apostolic Norm where it had been discarded. Referring to events after the breach only confirms the breach in those Rites, and does nothing to “disprove” the Apostolic Norm. The continued disregard of the facts can be overcome by a determined effort to accept the reality now known.

In post #67, the scope of Fr Cochini’s work has been indicated by Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003, who affirms:
“Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.

“What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index. ‘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 century.’-- Henri Cardinal de Lubac.”
See: tinyurl.com/kvm8kfe

 

[babochka]

Such a statement shows the reality that the enormous research and facts revealed are still not understood by some who apparently find it difficult to accept facts which they previously did not know. The Apostolic Norm, continuing in the Latin Rite, was breached in the East at the Council of Trullo.

Naturally, after the breach, there would be no Apostolic Norm where it had been discarded. Referring to events after the breach only confirms the breach in those Rites, and does nothing to “disprove” the Apostolic Norm. The continued disregard of the facts can be overcome by a determined effort to accept the reality now known.

In post #67, the scope of Fr Cochini’s work has been indicated by Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003, who affirms:
“Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.

“What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index. ‘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 century.’-- Henri Cardinal de Lubac.”
See: tinyurl.com/kvm8kfe

Abu, I would love to have an actual dialog with you. One in which you bring up a point, I bring up a counter point, or perhaps even agree with your point. Then I bring up a point and you do the same. I think this is an issue worthy of discussion in order to understand the arguments for and against non-celibate priests, both of which are acceptable to the Church. Unfortunately, you just keep repeating the same thing, over and over. You have not attempted to address a single point I’ve made, nor answer a single question I’ve asked. I persevere, because I’m hopeful that there are others still reading this thread. I’d hate to think that there are only 2 or 3 of us left, talking to each other, but not really discussing anything.

You are fond of saying that attention to facts is a worthy endeavor. Here are some facts, as I see them.

1. I’ll stipulate to your facts that clerical continence is an apostolic practice and was universally accepted by all the churches, East and West.
2. At some point, there was a divergence in practice.
3. The East has had married priests, at least since the Council in Trullo, though certainly before.
4. The East (Catholic and Orthodox) continue to have married priests who do not practice continence. These priests have served and continue to serve the Church with steadfast loyalty, heroism and holiness.
5. The West has recently begun, on a limited basis and under exceptional circumstances, to ordain married men to the priesthood.
6. The Church has the authority to change disciplinary practices, even those that have apostolic origins. An example of this is the discipline of the administration of the sacraments. Originally, all sacraments were administered by the Apostles, then the Bishops. Over time, some of this authority was delegated to the priests. In the west, the Sacrament of Confirmation was normally reserve to the Bishop. In the East, this sacrament was delegated to the priest. (In the west, this sacrament is sometimes delegated to the priest. ) The Sacraments of initiation were originally given in the order of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. This practice has generally changed in the west. I bring this up because it is a clear example that the Church does have the authority to change apostolic practice.

I would love to continue this discussion in a dialog format. Perhaps you can take some time to refute my facts. If you’d like to do so, I’ll be following the thread. Otherwise, have a good day!

 

[Abu]

babochka

1. An inability to accept the facts starts with not realising the proven Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy.
   The acceptance of that fact begins the process of normality.
2. My Post #84 gives the facts: “St John Paul II’s *Pastores Dabo Vobis *(On The Formation Of Priests In The Circumstances Of The Present Day), 1992:
   “This synod strongly reaffirms what the Latin Church and some Oriental rites require that is, that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity (without prejudice to the tradition of some Oriental churches and particular cases of married clergy who convert to Catholicism, which are admitted as exceptions in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on priestly celibacy, no. 42).”
3. My Post #90: “As stated, allowed under those special conditions as converts.”
4. The divergence from the Apostolic Norm stated at Trullo confirms the laxity to that Norm illicitly practised by some.

Thus there is nothing which has not been identified as to how and why the shedding of the Apostolic Norm arose in Eastern Rites, and the special provisions made recently for those converts who were married pastors in other sects and expressed the wish to become Catholic priests and were prepared for that honour.

Who has questioned that “the Church does have the authority to change apostolic practice.”? There has never been any question that the Apostolic Norm of priestly continence was a dogma or doctrine. The fact that it was unilaterally changed without the permission of the Holy See at the time it was changed, despite the reality of the Apostolic Norm, is the essence of that Trullo decision. The authority of “the Church” means that what some prelates choose may be against that authority, as in this case.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Trullo and most of what Abu states only applies to the Byzantine Churches, not any of the other Eastern Catholics, so what do you have in regard to the “universal practice” when only one, perhaps two Churches are represented?

The Syriac/Malankara, Chaldean/Assyrian, Armenian, Coptic/Ethiopian, etc have not been addressed at all by Abu or anyone else. And Abu’s presentation has been rejected by the Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox, in practice; in addition, the Latins now ordain married deacons and priests, usually without requiring them to live as brother and sister with their spouse. So what of all the repeated quotes from the same three sources, one of which has been renounced by the author himself?

 

[babochka]

1. The divergence from the Apostolic Norm stated at Trullo confirms the laxity to that Norm illicitly practised by some.

Although the Pope’s signature was sought (and refused) after Trullo, it does not necessarily follow that allowing married priests was an illicit act. Rome likely would have been content with the Eastern practice had the East not attempted to impose it upon the whole Church. Rome was not in the habit of micro-managing other Patriarchates at that time. The main issue that Rome had with the council was the attempt from the Eastern prelates to condemn each and every case in which Western practice varied from Eastern practice. From the Catholic Encylopedia:

In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

Thus there is nothing which has not been identified as to how and why the shedding of the Apostolic Norm arose in Eastern Rites, and the special provisions made recently for those converts who were married pastors in other sects and expressed the wish to become Catholic priests and were prepared for that honour.

This is a lengthy and balanced article on the subject, albeit from an Orthodox perspective. It does not translate well into quotes and sound bytes, so I recommend reading it in its entirety. While you will no doubt quibble with its Orthodox bias, there is strong respect for the position and traditions of the West.

orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy

Who has questioned that “the Church does have the authority to change apostolic practice.”? There has never been any question that the Apostolic Norm of priestly continence was a dogma or doctrine.** The fact that it was unilaterally changed without the permission of the Holy See at the time it was changed,** despite the reality of the Apostolic Norm, is the essence of that Trullo decision. The authority of “the Church” means that what some prelates choose may be against that authority, as in this case.

That’s not the way the Church worked in those days. Church governance was not centralized and permission from Rome was neither sought nor needed.

 

[Abu]

babochka #169
That’s not the way the Church worked in those days. Church governance was not centralized and permission from Rome was neither sought nor needed.

Incorrect.

Not only has the Apostolic Norm been substantiated for all, but we know that already Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8). That is papal governance.

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

The Ancient Tradition of Clerical Celibacyby Mary R. Schneider
Ignatius Press Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 2007
“The Holy See, which was not represented at The Council of Trullo (691-92), angrily refused to recognize its authority, especially its brazen claim that it was an ecumenical council whose canons were binding upon the whole Church. Naturally, Rome rejected Trullo’s canons on clerical marriage, which deviated so clearly from a tradition of clerical chastity that had long been observed in both the East and West.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7663&CFID=52725874&CFTOKEN=77729727

 

[SyroMalankara]

Again, same references which have been cited and refuted ad nauseum. This last post, the writer even limits herself to the Latin Church, excluding any history or perspective on the Eastern Churches, attempting to prove not a universal practice but the Latin practice:

The coexistence of clerical marriage with clerical continence had never been easy but by the eleventh century it had become obvious that this shaky “marriage” was over. If the Church was to uphold the morality of its clergy or keep them under its control at all, the tradition of clerical marriage had to be abandoned. Clerical marriage actually threatened to undermine the ontological identity of the ministerial priesthood as a sacred class set apart from the laity and consecrated to the service of God and the Church and to replace it with a notion in which the priesthood would be seen merely as a set of functions or an office that a man exercised. Moreover, clerical marriage was clearly laicizing the clergy and it would have continued to do so if the Church had not put an end to it. By adopting strict clerical celibacy, the Church preserved both the tradition of clerical chastity and the theology of the priesthood that had developed along with it from apostolic times.

Although celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood, it is an ancient discipline with deep roots in the history, law, and practice of the Latin Church. Because it is clearly a part of the Church’s tradition, something that has been handed down from the age of the Church Fathers, it should not and must not be discarded just because it is unpopular or because it does not reflect modern sensibilities. There are, in fact, good practical reasons for the Church to retain this venerable discipline.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Interestingly, no one is calling for the Tradition mentioned here, which seems quite Apostolic and practical:

Nevertheless, from the fifth century through the eleventh century, the Latin Church firmly held to its law that all clerics in major orders were to observe perfect continence after ordination. In fact, over the course of these centuries, the Church actually increased its restrictions on married clerics. In 653 the Council of Toledo prohibited clerics from having any type of public relationship with their wives or concubines.11 When the Frankish Church held its first reform synod in 743, it forbade any priest or deacon to live in the same house with any woman, including his wife. The Irish Penitentials of the sixth century, which were one of the earliest medieval collections of disciplinary norms on clerical life, imposed strict penalties upon clerics who committed fornication or who engaged in conjugal activity after ordination. Similar ordinances for Anglo-Saxon lands could be found in penitential books of the eighth century. Bishop Chrodegang of Metz (d. 766) issued the Regula canonicorum, **which required that his cathedral clergy, or canons, live in a community governed by a rule similar to those of religious orders. This practice, which was eventually adopted by many other dioceses, provided a practical alternative to the existing custom of allowing married clerics to live with their wives, making it easier for priests to live celibately. **

 

[babochka]

Incorrect.

Not only has the Apostolic Norm been substantiated for all, but we know that already Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8). That is papal governance.

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

The Ancient Tradition of Clerical Celibacyby Mary R. Schneider
Ignatius Press Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 2007
“The Holy See, which was not represented at The Council of Trullo (691-92),** angrily refused to recognize its authority, especially its brazen claim that it was an ecumenical council whose canons were binding upon the whole Church. **Naturally, Rome rejected Trullo’s canons on clerical marriage, which deviated so clearly from a tradition of clerical chastity that had long been observed in both the East and West.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7663&CFID=52725874&CFTOKEN=77729727

Oh, I’m not arguing that Rome was wrong to reject Trullo, but the issue was in the attempt to impose something on the entire Church without the participation of the west, and it its claim to be an ecumenical council. That is why Rome’s consent was sought. If the prelates who participated in Trullo had imposed canons only for their particular churches, it is unlikely Rome would have attempted in interfere in the matter.