Priestly Celibacy Not Merely Church Discipline. Famed Catholic Historian Refutes Argument That It Is

[babochka]

babochka . . . .

I think that you don’t understand what the Church means when she uses the term “confessors” in this context.

I’m not terribly familiar with the Latin Rite calendar, but Edward the Confessor, King of England, comes to mind. I don’t know why three would be necessary, but I can search for more. But if even one saint with the title “confessor” exists who is not ordained, that should be enough.

 

[Cathoholic]

babochka . . .

I’m not terribly familiar with the Latin Rite calendar, but Edward the Confessor, King of England, comes to mind.

Sorry. That won’t do.

That is a nickname. Not a liturgical designation.

From Wikipedia . . .

Edward the Confessor Historians disagree about Edward’s fairly long (24-year) reign. His nickname reflects the traditional image of him as unworldly and pious. Confessor reflects his reputation as a saint who did not suffer martyrdom, as opposed to King Edward the Martyr.

Bold “nickname” and “reputation” mine.

.
Notice under St. Alban’s name the designation “martyr”.

The same with St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

.

Or under St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.
She has the Liturgical designation “virgin” and “martyr” (in addition to patron of Europe).
She does NOT have the designation “of the Cross”.
That is her name or moniker. Not her liturgical designation.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

.

Now let’s look at St. Edward the Confessor (“the Confessor” is not his liturgical designation. It is his common moniker or “commonly known as”.)

We see nothing of his liturgical designation as “confessor” or “martyr” (or obviously “virgin”).

We rather see the liturgical designation . . .
. . . “Common of Pastors: for Bishops Common of Martyrs”.

.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/National/England2.shtml

.

babochka . . . .

But if even one saint with the title “confessor” exists who is not ordained, that should be enough.

Fine.

Do you have one? (Remember. I am not looking for “titles”. I am looking for “liturgical designations” here.)

 

[babochka]

babochka . . .

I’m not terribly familiar with the Latin Rite calendar, but Edward the Confessor, King of England, comes to mind.

Why does it need to be a liturgical designation?

You said:

In the Mass, we see special veneration given to three different states in life. Virgins, Confessors (Priests), and Martyrs.

(Priests) was your addition. It is not present in the Mass. Do you imagine that virgins, confessors and martyrs include only those who have been so designated by the Church? When the Latin Rite Church celebrates All Saints Day, do you only honor those saints who have been canonized, those who are known to the Church?

But, since you asked: St. Henry, Holy Roman Emperor, Confessor
https://reginamag.com/saint-henry-ii/

 

[Cathoholic]

As you do, I also think that virginity is a good thing, better than the nuptial life. I add that
it (virginity) is as superior to the nuptial life as Heaven is superior to earth, or
as Angels to men. . . .
. . . Angels do not marry, neither does the virgin man. Angels live before God always at His service; so does the virgin man. . . .
. . . Can’t you see all the excellence of virginity? Can’t you see how it transforms those who still live clothed in this flesh and makes them equal to Angels?

Tell me in what point are those great lovers of virginity, Elias, Eliseus and St. John, different from Angels? In almost nothing. Only in this, that they are Angels in a mortal nature. Regarding the rest, anyone who analyzes them carefully sees that they deserve the same esteem as the angelic spirits. Further, because their condition is far inferior to the Angels, their merit is the greater. For because of their mortal nature, only with much violence and great effort could they attain such an eminent degree of virtue. See how much courage they had and the type of life they lived. – St. John Chrysostom

Admittedly St. John Chrysostom takes some harmonizing to do as there are apparent contradictions (but when looked at closely are not as Mike Aquilina points out (here).

 

[Cathoholic]

babochka . . .

Why does it need to be a liturgical designation?

Because that was the context of my original response that you then responded to.

Anything else is moving the proverbial goalposts.

You showed an etymology link that talked of the word’s meaning morphing three different times throughout history.

Thanks and I think that is interesting etymology to be sure.

But I used the word in the Liturgical context of the Latin Rite.

 

[babochka]

But I used the word in the Liturgical context of the Latin Rite.

Why did you add your own interpretation to the context?

 

[babochka]

But, since you asked: St. Henry, Holy Roman Emperor, Confessor
Saint Henry II, Confessor - REGINA Magazine LLC

The collect for St. Henry:

O God, on this day You raised the blessed confessor Henry from earthly royalty to an eternal kingdom. May his example enable us to turn aside from the enticements of the world and come to You with a pure heart, even as he was strengthened by Your grace to withstand the fascination of worldly attractions. Through our Lord . . .

I found St. Henry in about 10 minutes of an internet search.

 

[Cathoholic]

That’s fine (although a prayer using his name is not the same as his liturgical designation, I am good with it. If there were a collect of St. so and so the mighty, we would know that the prayer in the collect is referring to his moniker. Not that he has a “liturgical designation” as “mighty”. Or the Collect for St. John Paul II as “II”. Or St. Charles Borromeo as “Borromeo”. It’s not quite the same as his liturgical designation. But I am not going to get that pedantic here. I see what you are saying and am fine with it).

Thank you.

 

[Cathoholic]

babochka . . .

Why did you add your own interpretation to the context?

It was an organic development of the discussion.

Why?

Because the whole point of the thread is celibacy in the context of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom.

There are three evangelical counsels.
The chastity part is a portion of those three.

Keeping that in mind . . . .

I was defending the Church’s traditional teaching on the superiority of virginity in this context (the context of “Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom”).

Then I pointed out that virginity is so extolled,
that the Church gives special recognition to Virgins, Martyrs, and Confessors. (Here it is again.)

This was in the context of liturgical designation, which was my whole point.

(Not necessarily one of the three etymological morphologic changes of the common definition of the common usage that you referred me to, which is not relevant to what to my point was.

And the fact that some people who were known for “confessing” Christ in that context, who also happened to be Saints and the Church calling them by such monikers, does not equal a liturgical designation.)

But it isn’t worth the pedantics of going on with it.

My point is Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, is extolled and even liturgically recognized in a special catagory.

And your point is, there is a broader meaning. And I get that and am grateful for you filling that broader meaning out for me.

I just haven’t ever seen any liturgical Confessors designated in the missalette, that have not been Priests.

 

[pnewton]

The usual “attack the source, not the substance” objections are out in force, but that just proves they have no real argument other than ad hominem.

I do not understand this, at least if you are a Catholic. After all, the Church is our authority, not internet flotsam. The source is essential. Had the OP quoted Church teaching, like an encyclical or the catechism, then the source is authoritative. For example, I can quote the catechism regarding celibacy.

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries:

This makes the any non-authoritative document moot.

 

[pnewton]

Why is it, exactly, that The Remnant is not a credible source?

It is not a primary source, for one. On the internet, it is important to note when blogs quote blogs, op-eds, themselves, each other, etc. It takes a lot of digging sometimes to find stuff that is “all over the internet” may be from one single faulty source. This topic should not even be debatable. The Church has clearly maintained, to this day, that celibacy is a discipline and not critical to the priesthood.

LSN has a bad habit of stirring the pot in its anti-Catholic fervor, driving division and bickering wherever they sniff the opportunity. I think they actually started as a pro-life site, but have long abandoned that goal in favor of this rather distasteful format.

 

[babochka]

The usual “attack the source, not the substance” objections are out in force, but that just proves they have no real argument other than ad hominem.

When the source has proven to be problematic time and time again, it seems prudent to be wary of accepting what they say without serious scrutiny, and what they say in this case does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

Why is it, exactly, that The Remnant is not a credible source?

It is not a primary source, for one. On the internet, it is important to note when blogs quote blogs, op-eds, themselves, each other, etc. It takes a lot of digging sometimes to find stuff that is “all over the internet” may be from one single faulty source. This topic should not even be debatable. The Church has clearly maintained, to this day, that celibacy is a discipline and not critical to the priesthood.

LSN has a bad habit of stirring the pot in its anti-Catholic fervor, driving division and bickering wherever they sniff the opportunity. I think they actually started as a pro-life site, but have long abandoned that goal in favor of this rather distasteful format.

LSN clearly labeled this as an opinion piece from The Remnant.

 

[JohnR77]

The Faith of Our Fathers
by James Cardinal Gibbons

"Jesus Christ manifestly showed His predilection for virginity, not only by always remaining a virgin, but by selecting a Virgin-Mother and a virgin-precursor in the person of St. John the Baptist, and by exhibiting a special effection for John the Evangelist, because, as St. Augustine testifies, that Apostle was chosen a virgin and such he always remained.

Not only did our Lord thus manifest while on earth a marked predilection for virgins, but He exhibits the same preference for them in heaven; for the hundred and forty-four thousand who are chosen to sing the New Canticle and who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth are all virgins, as St. John testifies. (Apoc. xiv.)"

.

See new thread for text and audio of Cardinal Gibbons book.
Read full chapter or book, Free Online. See

The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons Sacred Scripture

The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons I just wanted to share some resources I found on the net. Why one would want to read this book … Shaun McAfee explains the profound value this book is in communicating the Catholic faith to the everyday person, Catholic and non-Catholic. He explains … ‘The Faith of Our Fathers’ Is a Masterpiece … Not just convincing but convicting … If there were a textbook on a straightforward way to communicate the Faith, this is it. … The reasons to ra…

.

A lot of the difficulties presented above can be answered by reading the book below that was mentioned in the article. It is a great read. Use a highlighter as you will want to use that on just about every page. I wish I could scan in the whole book and upload it.

The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini, S.J., in his book which was published by Ignatius in 1990. He quotes every historical reference made by the Church Fathers on this subject. Buy now at discount

https://www.ignatius.com/Apostolic-Origins-of-Priestly-Celibacy-P120.aspx

God bless,
John

 

[steph03]

LifesiteNews … The people at that site need to read Epehesians 4:29 “Guard against foul talk; let your words be for the improvement of others, as occasion offers, and do good to your listeners”

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . . .

LSN has a bad habit of stirring the pot in its anti-Catholic fervor, driving division and bickering wherever they sniff the opportunity.

I haven’t found this to be the case at all.

I enjoy LifeSiteNews, read them frequently, and will continue to do so.

 

[pnewton]

LSN clearly labeled this as an opinion piece from The Remnant.

Then I do not understand your question. Catholic doctrine is not based on opinions or blogs. They are not reliable sources for Catholic teaching.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

LSN clearly labeled this as an opinion piece from The Remnant.

Then I do not understand your question. Catholic doctrine is not based on opinions or blogs. They are not reliable sources for Catholic teaching.

Opinion pieces and blogs can include verifiable information – is the content in this opinion piece verifiable?

 

[babochka]

pnewton:

gracepoole:

LSN clearly labeled this as an opinion piece from The Remnant.

Then I do not understand your question. Catholic doctrine is not based on opinions or blogs. They are not reliable sources for Catholic teaching.

Opinion pieces and blogs can include verifiable information – is the content in this opinion piece verifiable?

Some of it is demonstrably, factually incorrect.

 

[RenaissanceMensch]

Strangely, the teaching of marriage that Jesus made clear in Matthew 19:1-12 seems to be one of the hardest for people to except. I would encourage people to read it in its entirety. It ends by saying that people who can accept marriage and his teaching on marriage ought to. It is not hard to understand. It is not ambiguous. Whatever confusing article LifeSite writes can’t undo what Jesus said.

Instead, there is a strong desire to misread this scripture or ignore it. Jesus basically says that some people’s path is to give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. However, some people really want celibacy to be considered superior which is not the teaching of Jesus at all.

Err, not only is this is not how the Church has historically read/understood Matthew 19, she has explicitly anathematized such a reading.

Saint JP2 specifically said that all vocations are equal.

He says they are all equal “from this point of view,” i.e., that they “are born in Christ.” And, at any rate, a Pope’s off-hand remark in a non-Magisterial book does not really stand against a literal anathema from an ecumenical Council.