Illigitamate Priests and ordination

[notsmart]

You seem to have a false impression that the pope could be illegitimate, but not a priest. Since popes are pretty much always priests first, I don’t see how you can claim that priests were being held to a higher standard than popes.

I don’t hold the impression a pope is never a priest first.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, like the Jewish priests had to be “intact”

I like the symbolism also, but I can’t see being born in this way, being an impediment, because it is not the child’s choosing how he comes into this world. Many likely thought Jesus to be illigitamate when Mary was pregnant. It certainly did not stop people from following him.

Given that a lot of these dudes were probably, ahem, “nephews” of archbishops and popes, maybe we better not look too hard at how frequently dispensations were exercised. (I love Catholic history )

I personally know a man who was turned down (40 years ago) because his parents were divorced.

 

[notsmart]

Given that a lot of these dudes were probably, ahem, “nephews” of archbishops and popes, maybe we better not look too hard at how frequently dispensations were exercised. (I love Catholic history )

I personally know a man who was turned down (40 years ago) because his parents were divorced.

Mercygate, you are so honest its hard not to want to be catholic just reading your take on all this!:tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

The intact thing even applied somewhat to ordained priests.

One of the Jesuits martyrs of North American (St. Isaac Jogues)lost most of his fingers to torture by the Iroquois. When he returned to France, he was now allowed to say Mass because of the state of his hands. He received a special permission from the Pope to touch the Eucharist.

He later went back to North America and was martyred.

God Bless

Ah yes! Great example. He DID have to get a dispensation. But that is a particular dispensation because he must have lost his “canonicals” (thumb and forefinger of each hand) that were specifically consecrated to the Eucharist. Only those two fingers ever touched the consecrated host. Namely, if Jogues lost his index finger, he would have had his middle finger blessed for the purpose . . .

 

[Phemie]

I personally knew two men who were accepted into a catholic seminary, both were born out of wedlock. If this is true, why would the seminary even accept them.

Just because you’re accepted into the seminary doesn’t guarantee you’ll become a priest. Since it was an impediment that could be dispensed, they would certainly have to see if there was a good reason to do so, something they couldn’t discover unless they studied the person.

 

[Methodi]

Eventually they both left the seminary on their own, which unfortunely most do. I could be wrong but I dont think it is an impediment being born out of wedlock, to be ordained a priest.Consecrated religious & Priests, have come from all kinds of family backrounds, good & bad

 

[mercygate]

Eventually they both left the seminary on their own, which unfortunely most do. I could be wrong but I dont think it is an impediment being born out of wedlock, to be ordained a priest.Consecrated religious & Priests, have come from all kinds of family backrounds, good & bad

Illigitimacy WAS an impediment to priesthood. Some Religious orders for women would accept only certified virgins – as is the case today in some communities. Most communities for women would not accept widows.

Communities of Religious brothers never had the restrictions that priesthood required, and many reformed sinners and criminals have made brilliant penance as Religious.

 

[redrosetea]

I think a priest must have a thumb and first finger to say mass…I am guessing it is because of the way they must hold the host when they elevate it…they young man that played the guitar for Pope John Paul II, with his feet, wanted to be a priest but he had no arms so he couldn’t say mass

 

[puzzleannie]

Was ordination of a priest denied if they were born out of wedlock?

This is so odd. Even the pope is not required to be impeccable, so why the lowly priest would be a possible detriment to his pastoral ability for this reason, and why would it “look bad”?

Considering he is such a low man on the totem pole, and the pope being the Vicar of Christ, how on earth did anyone find this logical? I am glad its been RECENTLY abandoned, but it certainly sends my hairs up on end to know that it was a impediment to the priesthood!

Thanks for any help understanding this if you can.

the issue had nothing to do with impeccability (freedom from sin) and the former canon law prohibition was not because the man was seen as somehow sinful, so this is a non-issue. It was one of many impediments, some of which have since been lifted. there is an ongoing thread, why are we starting a new one?

 

[notsmart]

the issue had nothing to do with impeccability (freedom from sin) and the former canon law prohibition was not because the man was seen as somehow sinful, so this is a non-issue. It was one of many impediments, some of which have since been lifted. there is an ongoing thread, why are we starting a new one?

I did not know about another thread on this

 

[mikejacobus]

I believe that this is a perfect example of the Holy Spirit leading, guiding and correcting our Holy Church. Sometimes men have made rules, conditions or impediments that the Divine Guide deems incorrect and need to be changed.

 

[notsmart]

I believe that this is a perfect example of the Holy Spirit leading, guiding and correcting our Holy Church. Sometimes men have made rules, conditions or impediments that the Divine Guide deems incorrect and need to be changed.

Well, that sure is one way to look at it, and if it were something that was changed say, 500 or a 1,000 years ago I might be thinking the same way. But, for the nearly the whole time its been one way. 20 years is a blink of an eye (trust me, I blinked away my youth
I was thinking about Augustine, a convert. He had a wild lifestyle in his day before conversion. It seems virginity was never an issue (then or now) for a man to enter seminary. I also realized he came from a higher class stata. There was no shortage of priests, and possibly these rules helped cut down on the demand for seminary. But, if we look at today and the lack of priests, which no one had a crystal ball to see of course… Isn’t this in a way a bit of a penance that God could be giving the Church for restricting like this all along? IOW, its time to pay now. When things are going great, no one thinks about changing a system or questions if it is correct or not.
My ultimate question is how can such an abrupt about face be made in a church that takes hundreds of years to promulgate dogma and is slow to speak to what is right, but quick to say what is wrong?
I hope that makes sense, I don’t know if it does really.

 

[mikejacobus]

My ultimate question is how can such an abrupt about face be made in a church that takes hundreds of years to promulgate dogma and is slow to speak to what is right, but quick to say what is wrong?
I hope that makes sense, I don’t know if it does really.

It makes perfect sense…when you are talking about the Human aspect of the Church. Since the Spirit is not bound by time and space, and is always superior to the Human Element, the spirit’s will is done in an instant. Thank God that this wrong impediment is removed. Leave the mystery of “why now” to God.

 

[Digitonomy]

But, if we look at today and the lack of priests, which no one had a crystal ball to see of course… Isn’t this in a way a bit of a penance that God could be giving the Church for restricting like this all along? IOW, its time to pay now. When things are going great, no one thinks about changing a system or questions if it is correct or not.

If you’re suggesting that the canon was changed to allow more vocations and avert a shortage of priests, I would point out that in the 1970s when most of the 1983 Code was being written, the shortage was not a pressing issue nor an inevitable problem. If you are only suggesting that God is punishing us for our arrogance in enacting such an impediment, why now? Wouldn’t it have been more fitting to do so at a time when that impediment had the force of law, than after its repeal? Perhaps the surge in vocations in Africa is a reward for our removal of the canon. Perhaps instead the death of many priests in concentration camps during World War II were God’s punishment for our arrogance. I think this whole line of reasoning is rather shaky.

 

[Digitonomy]

I believe that this is a perfect example of the Holy Spirit leading, guiding and correcting our Holy Church. Sometimes men have made rules, conditions or impediments that the Divine Guide deems incorrect and need to be changed…
Thank God that this wrong impediment is removed. Leave the mystery of “why now” to God.

Of course, one could argue that the Holy Spirit was guiding and correcting the Church when the impediment was first instituted. Such a person would then pray that this wrong abrogation of the impediment is short-lived.:ehh:

 

[mercygate]

We tend to cast everything in terms of “rights,” “wrongs” and “blame.” The impediments to Priesthood that prevailed until the new Code of Canon Law, if seen in themselves, were quite coherent were set up to conform the Priesthood on its Model.