Pope strongly defends Priestly celibacy and consecrated virginity

[KyrieEleison17]

In the ordination rite of the priest, his hands are consecrated, not his person. In the profession of vows of a brother, the entire man is consecrated: mind, body and soul.

Thank you Brother.

So I gather from you that consecration is a very special and specific term in Church jargon, clearly, and not the same as it might be popularly or commonly used, which is in a broader sense I think.

I’m curious though, you pointed out that only a priest’s hands are consecrated in ordination and “not his person”; however, this has me a bit confused because the Church also teaches that a special and permanent character is somehow/mysteriously “imprinted” (good word for it?) on the priest’s soul? So what might be the proper term to distinguish this aspect of a priest’s ordination from the consecration of his hands? I mean I think in popular parlance someone might easily call such a thing as the imprinting of the character on the priest’s soul “consecration” and also, similarly, in baptism, where again we are taught that a special character is imprinted or imputed to/“on” the baptized person’s soul.

Is there a special term for that to distinguish it from consecration properly speaking?

Thank you for your patience and instruction Brother!

 

[Baloo]

Whether I agree or disagree with a celibate priesthood or not, these are terrible arguments against a married priesthood.

The office of “priest of Jesus Christ” is much, much more than these simple temporal and human issues.

Of course, I’m not saying the only reasons are worldly ones, there is also definitely a spiritual side to it. After all, St. Paul says it best himself:
1Corinthians 7:32-35:

An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.

An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband

That’s probably the best argument anyone can give as to why Priests shouldn’t be married. But there are many, many different reasons.

 

[Zekariya]

Of course, I’m not saying the only reasons are worldly ones, there is also definitely a spiritual side to it. After all, St. Paul says it best himself:

That’s probably the best argument anyone can give as to why Priests shouldn’t be married. But there are many, many different reasons.

St Paul certainly does say it best himself:
1 Timothy 3:1-2 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

Lets not cherry-pick the Scriptures like the protestants.

The Tradition of the Catholic Church says that married men and celibate men can become priests. It is a matter of Church discipline that decides whether or not to ordain married men. The Western Catholic Church usually only ordains celibate men (though there are exceptions). Most Eastern Catholic Churches ordain celibate men and married men.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

The only one exception I know of is for married permanent deacons, who loses his wife and has small children. If he finds himself in a situation that there is person who would take that role, he can petition Rome for dispensation. This is not granted lightly as holy orders is an impediment to marriage.

Even writing this it seems weird; like there is a woman just awaiting for a wife to die so she can marry a deacon.

This is not something that happens often and it should not.

I think you missed my point. It wasn’t about when priests marry, and deacons are a different issue. The fact remains what married priests there are in the Roman Rite, and there are more than a few, didn’t start out as catholic. There is no necessity to recognise their orders when they join the Catholic Church, and maybe admitting them into one of the other rites, or Sui juris churches, whatever the correct terminology, might be an answer, but this is not what happens generally.

 

[Zekariya]

I think you missed my point. It wasn’t about when priests marry, and deacons are a different issue. The fact remains what married priests there are in the Roman Rite, and there are more than a few, didn’t start out as catholic. There is no necessity to recognise their orders when they join the Catholic Church, and maybe admitting them into one of the other rites, or Sui juris churches, whatever the correct terminology, might be an answer, but this is not what happens generally.

I know that exAnglican priests are re-ordained when they become Catholic and are usually married. This, however, is an exception to the Latin Catholic discipline of only having celibate priests.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

I know that exAnglican priests are re-ordained when they become Catholic and are usually married. This, however, is an exception to the Latin Catholic discipline of only having celibate priests.

Yeah that’s my point. Exceptions for Protestants and a different rule, rigidly enforced, for Catholics of the Roman Rite or Latins as some might say. No one has ever explained to me, not satisfactorily at any rate, why a married Protestant is a better candidate for the priesthood in the roman rite, when, a married Roman Catholic is deemed inadmissible, not even up for consideration as an exception to the rule.
Talk all you like about the other churches within the Catholic Church, but at least their position tends to be consistent. And that’s a good thing.

 

[Zekariya]

Yeah that’s my point. Exceptions for Protestants and a different rule, rigidly enforced, for Catholics of the Roman Rite or Latins as some might say. No one has ever explained to me, not satisfactorily at any rate, why a married Protestant is a better candidate for the priesthood in the roman rite, when, a married Roman Catholic is deemed inadmissible, not even up for consideration as an exception to the rule.
Talk all you like about the other churches within the Catholic Church, but at least their position tends to be consistent. And that’s a good thing.

Dispensation from current disciplinary practices are sometimes made for the good of the Church. An Anglican congregation that desires to become Catholic love their pastor and Anglican liturgy. The Catholic Church in her wisdom and desire for the salvation of everyone accepts the Anglican parish into the Catholic Church and lets them keep their married pastor and Anglican liturgy.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Brother.

So I gather from you that consecration is a very special and specific term in Church jargon, clearly, and not the same as it might be popularly or commonly used, which is in a broader sense I think.

I’m curious though, you pointed out that only a priest’s hands are consecrated in ordination and “not his person”; however, this has me a bit confused because the Church also teaches that a special and permanent character is somehow/mysteriously “imprinted” (good word for it?) on the priest’s soul? So what might be the proper term to distinguish this aspect of a priest’s ordination from the consecration of his hands? I mean I think in popular parlance someone might easily call such a thing as the imprinting of the character on the priest’s soul “consecration” and also, similarly, in baptism, where again we are taught that a special character is imprinted or imputed to/“on” the baptized person’s soul.

Is there a special term for that to distinguish it from consecration properly speaking?

Thank you for your patience and instruction Brother!

The term “consecrated” is used in many ways in Latin that are not well translated into the English language. Remember, Latin has less words than English. For example, the term that you’re looking for is “ontological” no consecrated.

At the ordination of a man to the diaconate, there is an ontological change in his soul, meaning that his soul is the soul of a deacon. It can never go back to being the soul of a layman. The same applies to the other orders of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The same is true of the baptized person. You cannot undo it, because you cannot change the soul.

Aquinas used the word, “character”. Someone mistranslated it to “mark”. I’m often reminded of Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. That’s the meaning that people have given to Aquinas’ term, character. What he really mean by character was the identity of the soul. The identity of a soul in Holy Orders is different from that which he was born. It remains his soul. It does not cease to be him. But he is not the same as he was before Holy Orders.

His hands are consecrated for the purpose of consecrating the Eucharist, not for the purpose of touching the Eucharist. The man is ordained, not consecrated. To be ordained means to be sent. The bishop imposes his hands and then sends him.

Back to Latin. Consecrare and consecratio, to be made holy with, is used for many situations. But not all things are made holy the same way. Let’s compare the things that we consecrate.

1. Consecration to the Immaculate Heart
2. Profession of vows by a religious brother or religious sister
3. Consecration of a chalice
4. Consecration of an altar
5. Consecration of a church
6. Consecration of a burial site
7. Consecration of priest’s hands.
8. Consecration of the Eucharist

Of all the above, the only one who qualifies as a consecrated person, because it’s the intent of the Church, is number two. The Church intends to consecrate the person: mind, body and soul.

The others are different kinds of consecrations. They are not insignificant by any means. Who would dare say that the consecration of the Eucharist is insignificant. But it’s not the same kind of consecration.