Pope and change

[Abu]

The reality is that priestly continence is an Apostolic Norm. From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

No one can dispute those facts without error, and it is lack of knowledge of the facts and the inability to face them that produces false ideas to which some still cling.

 

[godisgood77]

It looks like Abu is referencing books for 1990 or later. Can anyone provide references from the first 500 years? Clearly, there is no biblical references to point to (unless I’ve missed something… have I?)

Another related topic is the view on that sexual relations were inherently sinful or unclean which was prevalent throughout the early Church. Look at Augustine’s view on sexuality… he believed that sexual relations **with in marriage **were at best at venial sin. Thank goodness that this deep and disordered pathology against sexuality has been corrected… not only is sex between married couples not sinful… it is sacramental, life giving and unitive. Point being that the Church has corrected its mistakes on how it views sexuality.

The disciple of priestly celibacy came about because of the false idea that sexuality is some how unclean and sinful. Also for practical reasons like the cost of supporting a family, ownership of land and assets, etc.

The disciple of priestly celibacy is exactly that - a disciple. It should be thought of how the Pope Francis speaks of it… something that could change, but it’s not high on the priority list.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually the eastern rule of continence mirrored that of the west until the east laxed their rules. This happened round about the time of the council of Trullo.

While the Latin Church attempted to uphold its laws on clerical continence, the churches in the Greek-speaking East adopted a laxer code for their clergy. The Council of Trullo (691-92), which was held in Constantinople, decreed that married subdeacons, deacons and priests were not permitted to separate from their wives and were required only to observe periodic abstinence rather than perpetual continence in conjunction with the exercise of their liturgical ministry. However, these canons did not apply to bishops, who were required to separate from their wives, and Trullo continued to uphold the ban on marriage and remarriage for all major clerics after ordination.

The Holy See, which was not represented at Trullo, 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.

The idea that married clergy in the East were, before Trullo, required to separate from their wives makes nonsense of several canons.

Canon X of the council of Ancyra, for example, gives a provision which allows for a deacon to marry after ordination, if the bishop was made aware that he intended to do so at the time of his ordination. It would be nonsensical to believe that such a canon was giving a provision for such a deacon to marry a woman for the purpose of then separating from her.

Canon VIII of the council of Neocaesarea also presents difficulties for your thesis. This canon lays down that if a man’s wife has committed adultery and is convicted openly of this, the man is excluded from ever being ordained. If, however, a man’s wife commits adultery after he is ordained, then such a man must divorce her. But, according to the canon, if such a man continues to live with his wife, he cannot retain his office, the obvious implication being that before his wife committed adultery, such a man was in fact permitted to live with her.

Furthermore, if such a practice of having married clerics separate from their wives (as was the discipline for married bishops) was truly only relaxed at Trullo, how is it that the non-Chalcedonians like the Copts, the Syriacs, the Ethiopians, etc. while rejecting Chalcedon and Trullo nevertheless do not follow such a practice of having their married clergy separate from their wives and having them practice perpetual continence, instead following a discipline similar to the one handed down at Trullo, whereby married presbyters are permitted to cohabit with their wives?

 

[Abu]

godisgood77 #22
It looks like Abu is referencing books for 1990 or later.

Such incomprehension is unfortunately typical, and explains the lack of knowledge which has been overcome precisely because of these ground-breaking studies which have painstakingly researched and explained the truth of the Apostolic Norm.

On Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Christian Cochini, S.J. ,Fr John Echert (EWTN):
He 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

The great work of this and other priest scholars is irrefutable and no one has even tried to provide anything contrary by any scholars of similar repute.

“Recently it is more fashionable to claim that obligatory celibacy [1] for the clergy began only in the 4th century, with Pope St. Siricius (384-399). Pope Siricius was affirming a norm [2] already fixed long before his time in the tradition [3]; he was not at all innovating a new norm.” (Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, STD, *Human Life International *1994)

The facts now available, 100 years later, show what was quite unclear in 1908 on celibacy from the apostles – that’s the problem with which the confused are unable to cope – outstanding scholarly research done with fidelity.

 

[godisgood77]

…On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: “There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century”[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, “would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny”.[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: “During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. … The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife ‘under pretense of piety’ (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51).”.[24]

 

[Abu]

None of the comments to refute the remarkably able studies Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000), have any substance as there is nothing to approach the competence of these studies.

“In 1878-9 Gustav Bickell published a bold thesis: the obligation of priestly celibacy dates from the time of the Apostles; no priest could marry; and when a married man was ordained, he was required to abstain permanently from the use of the marriage. That was the rule in both East and West from the earliest beginnings of the Church until the seventh century.

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. *Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. *“Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” *. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

“The earliest trace of a law (4) of ecclesiastical celibacy - based, however, on long established custom (5) - is found in the 33rd canon of the Council of Elvira, held at the beginning of the fourth century when Christians were still being actively persecuted. This law only made obligatory what the gospels and the apostolic preaching had already shown to be something like a natural requirement.” (6) [Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, Pius XI, 1935, AAS 28 (1936) 25].

Pius XI, 43: “But the Christian priesthood, being much superior to that of the Old Law, demanded a still greater purity. The law (4) of ecclesiastical celibacy, whose first written traces pre-suppose a still earlier unwritten practice (7), dates back to a canon of the Council of Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, when persecution still raged….The Second Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century declared:’ What the Apostles taught, and the early Church preserved, let us too, observe.’ "

Pope St John Paul II and the Bishops’ Synod on the formation of priests in the circumstances of the present day resulted in Pastores Dabo Vobis, 1992 – absolutely against changing that Apostolic Norm.