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

[Cathoholic]

jack63 . . .

I affirm the CCC

Well jack. I affirm the CCC too.
AND the Councils including the Council of Trent.

You can’t pick and choose which ones you are going to take.

jack63 quoting CCC 1620

. . . Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other

“Esteem” for BOTH STATES is “inseparable”.

Nobody here is saying . . .

“Well I esteem the virginal life, but I do not esteem married life.”

This is the straw-man you have to create, and attempt to put in my mouth.

And it is false.

I affirm the whole package.

I want to ask you again because you still have not answered it.

Do you affirm this @jack63? . . . .

SESSION 24 COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON X - If any one saith, that . . .
the state of virginity, or of celibacy,
. . . is not better and more blessed . . .
. . . than to be united in matrimony;
let him be anathema.

 

[AlNg]

SESSION 24 COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON X - If any one saith, that . . .
the state of virginity, or of celibacy,
. . . is not better and more blessed . . .
. . . than to be united in matrimony;
let him be anathema.

Is it possible for this teaching to be changed?

 

[Genesis315]

Like a lot of articles on this topic, this one seems to (at least at the beginning) inadequately distinguish between celibacy with continence–mandatory celibacy in the West was the manner in which the apostolic tradition of priestly continence came to be expressed, especially given the practice of daily Masses. The East acceded instead to periodic continence, permitted due to less often service at the altar.

“The Apostolic origins of priestly celibacy” by Christian Cochini SJ (cited in the articles) is a good read on this. Here’s a briefer treatment of this topic among various essays on celibacy published on the Vatican website for the Congregation for Clergy:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

No, since it comes straight out of Scripture and has the univocal testimony of Tradition.

This used to be one of those truths I had a hard time wrapping my head around. Isn’t it better to receive a sacrament (in this case, Matrimony) than not? We wouldn’t say those that choose not to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation are more blessed than those that do receive it–quite the opposite!

I think the Catechism pars 1618 to 1620 are helpful in this regard. Virginity and celibacy signify that the bond with Christ is supreme to any other human bonds–even a sacramental one. Where marriage is only for this world that is passing away (there is no marriage in heaven),virginity and celibacy anticipate the supremely blessed heavenly state.

 

[jack63]

You can’t pick and choose which ones you are going to take.

I will not play this game with you, and you will not get your question answered. Accepting the CCC is sufficient. St. John Paul II clearly states

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church , which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

This is in FAQ 16 of the USCCB frequently asked questions page

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...bout-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

 

[jack63]

Also, you may want to look at the footnotes of the New American Bible, which were composed by more recent biblical scholars.

At least the quote from the USCCB was helpful. FYI: I’d be careful of referencing the Catena Aurea again. I did look the place you suggested, and it indicated Jesus said marriage was not good which was not Catholic teaching, but then the link does not work anymore today.

As for the USCCB link, it clearly leaves Matthew 19:10-12 open to interpretation.

[19:11]
[This] word: probably the disciples’ “it is better not to marry” (Mt 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God.

[19:12]
Incapable of marriage: literally, “eunuchs.” Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, “have made themselves eunuchs”) for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can…ought to accept it.

As for Mt 22 You could just as easily take it as a strong affirmation of Jesus’ teaching on marriage. The relevant text is below from the NRSVACE…

he same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection;[a] and they asked him a question, saying, 24 ‘Teacher, Moses said, “If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.” 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.’ 29 Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels[b] in heaven.

Jesus is referring to old testament scripture. He is referring to Maccabees, and the 7 Maccabees martyrs. He is directly relating the 7 Maccabees martyrs and their mother with the 7 men, all of whom died, who married the one woman. He comparing the mother of 7 Maccabees to the woman who married the seven men. It is actually a beautiful affirmation of Jesus’ teaching on marriage a little earlier in Matthew 19.

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

 

[The27thPsalm]

I will not play this game with you, and you will not get your question answered. Accepting the CCC is sufficient.

The CCC being a sure norm for teaching the faith does not mean the non-acceptance of an infallible ecumenical council. In addition to that, St. Paul teaches the same.

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32: “As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority . Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32: “This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Even the CCC, in paragraph 916, states the union to be more intimate. To accept the CCC is the same as accepting these teachings, it cites Perfectae Caritatis and Canon law for that:

1. Members of each institute should recall first of all that by professing the evangelical counsels they responded to a divine call so that by being not only dead to sin (cf. Rom. 6:11) but also renouncing the world they may live for God alone. They have dedicated their entire lives to His service. This constitutes a special consecration, which is deeply rooted in that of baptism and expresses it more fully. Faithful to their profession then, and leaving all things for the sake of Christ (cf. Mark 10:28), religious are to follow Him (cf. Matt. 19:21) as the one thing necessary (cf. Luke 10:42) listening to His words (cf. Luke 10:39) and solicitous for the things that are His (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32).

§1. The life consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels is a stable form of living by which the faithful, following Christ more closely under the action of the Holy Spirit, are totally dedicated to God who is loved most of all, so that, having been dedicated by a new and special title to His honor, to the building up of the Church, and to the salvation of the world, they strive for the perfection of charity in the service of the kingdom of God and, having been made an outstanding sign in the Church, foretell the heavenly glory.

 

[rom]

At least the quote from the USCCB was helpful. FYI: I’d be careful of referencing the Catena Aurea again. I did look the place you suggested, and it indicated Jesus said marriage was not good which was not Catholic teaching, but then the link does not work anymore today.

I do not know why the link does not work today. But here is another link that you can use.
Catena Aurea, Matthew 19. Go to verse 10-12.

I do not have much time today, but Christ’s teaching on marriage from Matthew 19 was about his affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage rather than his preference for marriage over the state of celibacy.

 

[godisgood77]

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 certainly made a comment about the source… Lifesite has discredited itself many, many times - including how they position this one.

On the substance the author is simply wrong. The Church considers priestly celibacy a discipline. No matter what the author says, that does not change that fact.

 

[Joe_5859]

Can anyone tell me the name of this “famed Catholic historian”? I prefer not to give site traffic to LSN by clicking on the link in the OP.

 

[JohnR77]

Carl Olson had sent me the following, although I am only including a small portion of his letter. Emphasis mine.

“Superiority” of continence does not devaluate marriage

• General Audience, April 7, 1982 (of Pope Saint John Paul II) :

"5. In his pronouncement [in Matt. 19], does Christ perhaps suggest the

superiority of continence for the Kingdom of Heaven to matrimony? Certainly

he says that this is an “exceptional” vocation, not a common one. In

addition he affirms that it is particularly important and necessary to the

Kingdom of Heaven. If we understand superiority to matrimony in this sense,

we must admit that Christ set it out implicitly; however. he does not

express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony that

they do “well”; and about those who are willing to live in voluntary

continence, he will say that they do “better” (1 Cor 7:38).

1. That is also the opinion of the whole of Tradition, both doctrinal

and pastoral. The “superiority” of continence to matrimony in the authentic

Tradition of the Church never means disparagement of matrimony or

belittlement of its essential value. It does not even mean a shift, even

implicit on the Manichean positions or a support of ways of evaluating or

acting based on the Manichean understanding of the body and sexuality of

matrimony and procreation. The evangelical and authentically Christian

superiority of virginity and continence is, consequently, dictated by the

motive of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Christ’s words recorded in Matthew (Mt

19:11-12) we find a solid basis for admitting only this superiority. while

we do not find and basis whatever for any disparagement of matrimony which,

however, could have been present in the recognition of that superiority."

 

[JohnR77]

" … the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests ,
issued in 1994 by the
Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59
affirms Pope Siricius’s exegesis of the passages in Timothy and Titus. It also cites several early councils that required continence for married as well as for unmarried clergy. Then come these words: “The Church, from apostolic times , has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful” [emphasis added]. “The celibate faithful” clearly in early centuries would include married men who with their wives had vowed to observe perpetual continence after the men were ordained.)

Quotation from:
The Gift: A Married Priest Looks at Celibacy

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

The section just above the quote reads

" In 385 Pope Siricius reminded all married clergy (in Spain and presumably everywhere) that their vows of perpetual continence were “indissoluble.” 5 The next year, the pope issued a decretal repeating his prior ruling. He insisted he was not giving new rulings but was rather recalling the clergy to rules long established in the Church.

Some of the married clergy tried to defend their continuing conjugal life, but there was no tradition of optional celibacy to which they could appeal. They pointed rather to 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6, and 1 Timothy 3:12, which specified that bishops, priests, and deacons must have been “married only once” (must be unius uxoris vir , “husband of one wife”). In response, Pope Siricius declared that “married only once” does not mean that after their ordination married clergy could continue conjugal relations with their wives. The true meaning is this: A man faithful to one wife could be expected to be mature enough to live the perpetual continence required of him and his wife after his ordination.

This is the original magisterial exegesis of these passages. Further, Pope Siricius’s teaching finds clear echoes in the writings of the Fathers of this era: Ambrose, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Ambrosiaster. 6

Another passage used to buttress the apostolic case for optional celibacy is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Referring to his prerogatives as an apostle, Paul asks (seemingly rhetorically), “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” The Greek behind “believing wife” in this translation is “a sister wife” or “a sister as wife.” The words together do not mean “wife” in the ordinary sense. In the early centuries the term “sister” (as in 1 Corinthians 9:5) was used to designate a wife of a clergyman who with her had vowed perpetual continence before his ordination. Their relation was that of brother and sister.

 

[Cathoholic]

See here for part of the background of WHY the virginal state is superior to the non-virginal state in the OBJECTIVE order (it is a closer imitation to Christ).

I asked jack63 to just affirm ALL of what the Church teaches.

Jack63 insists upon asserting the CCC (which is great that he at least THINKS he is affirming the CCC [he’s not but at least he is trying], but the CCC never says what he was arguing DENYING the virginal state being superior to the non-virginal state).

Of course the CCC is drawn from amongst other things, the Councils . . . including the Council Trent.

.

CCC 9a "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. . .

.

Can I at least get you to affrm CCC 9 jack63?

.

.

For anyone late to ths thread here is what jack63 tried to tell you.

some people really want celibacy to be considered superior which is not the teaching of Jesus at all.

I saw this and had no idea where he was getting this (I still don’t know).

I pointed out here is what the Church REALLY teaches.

SESSION 24 COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON X - If any one saith, that . . .
the state of virginity, or of celibacy,
. . . is not better and more blessed . . .
. . . than to be united in matrimony;
let him be anathema.

He kept pushing it, and I did not want the readers to come away with a false idea of what the Church teaches here, so I needed to clarify.

I asked jack63 just to affirm explicitly what the Church says.

jack’s response?

Accepting the CCC is sufficient . . .

jack63 thinks some how somewhere in the CCC the virgnal state is equated to the non-virginal state (he’s wrong).

Of course by playing off the CCC against
any of the Councils
he is REJECTING the very CCC he claims to affirm (i.e. CCC 9).

.

CCC 1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace,
a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ
and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign
which also recalls that
marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.

 

[babochka]

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

I think that you don’t understand what the Church means when she uses the term “confessors” in this context. It does not refer to priests who hear confessions.

You can learn more about this usage in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215a.htm

The word confessor is derived from the Latin confiteri , to confess, to profess, but it is not found in writers of the classical period, having been first used by the Christians. With them it was a title of honour to designate those brave champions of the Faith who had confessed Christ publicly in time of persecution and had been punished with imprisonment, torture, exile, or labour in the mines, remaining faithful in their confession until the end of their lives. The title thus distinguished them from the martyrs, who were so called because they underwent death for the Faith.

 

[mythbuster1]

Amen. For those who can handle it, it is better not to marry, but those who cannot handle lifelong celibacy should marry, lest they fall into sin because of their failure to count the cost. Let all who seek the Virgin’s Crown count the cost, for it is better to marry than to sin, but those who persevere in their virginity will be highly blessed.

 

[jack63]

Can I at least get you to affrm CCC 9 jack63?

Yes that I can do. I affirm CCC 9. Also, I very much agree with agree with CCC 1618 to 1620 relating to virginity or celibacy for the kingdom of God. Also, I agree that the CCC will not change dogma from the Council of Trent or anywhere else. Can it clarify that dogma or explain it better…Sure! That is what I see the CCC doing in regards to the council of Trent’s view that Celibacy is superior.

All councils views, such as the council of Trent, are put in the context of scripture. The USCCB preferred interpretation of Matthew 9:11 is as follows…

[19:11]
[This] word: probably the disciples’ “it is better not to marry” (Mt 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God.

Matthew, CHAPTER 19 | USCCB

First, the USCCB is not going to say anything against the CCC or any dogma. I’m good with this interpretation.

If somebody is truly capable of virginity or celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God and that has been given to them by God, then that is truly the superior choice, I would agree with that. They should not feel societal pressure to marry. I personally think this is rare gift.

My concern is that the Council of Trent’s explanation of the superiority of celibacy or virginity could be misinterpreted to mean that it is something all people should strive for…even those to who this has not been given. In other words you should white knuckle it in terms of celibacy and test your endurance and strength. This is not church teaching. Further I would believe this view is a disparagement of matrimony.

I admit I do not like the way the Council of Trent phrased their language in terms of superiority. It needed better explained…not changed. The CCC got the meaning of the Council of Trent right without using the word superior.

I’m no longer going to respond on this thread. I’ve given a sincere explanation. I find the accusation that I’m playing the CCC off against any previous councils uncharitable to say the least.

 

[Dhc8_Type]

Never stopped dad, grandpa and a couple of uncles.

 

[babochka]

And Yes, it addresses the issue of priests in some Eastern Rites including married priests.

Indeed it does, with a considerable amount of factual error.

In the first millennium, the Eastern churches did not know this dogmatic-disciplinary development and remained as an exception to the Latin rule.

This is simply untrue.

Following this, in the schismatic Eastern churches, the ancient celibate discipline spread ever more widely, while the majority of the Eastern churches remained united or returned to union with Rome and accepted the Western discipline, even if for some Catholics, such as the Maronites and the Armenians, Rome tolerated their following of the ancient Greek custom.

It is actually a bit hard for me to follow what is being said here. Are they alleging that the discipline of celibacy spread ever more widely in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? This is not the case. Married priesthood was common in Eastern Churches in the first millennium and continued to be the common and uncontroversial after the schism. It continued to be common in the Eastern Churches which reunited with Rome. In fact, it was a condition of union with Rome under the Union of Brest that the marriages of priests remain intact. They did not “accept the Roman discipline”; they continued their own traditions of ordaining married men to the priesthood. Celibacy, always greatly esteemed in the East, is generally lived out in the monastic life.

 

[Cathoholic]

For the readers here. I am not alluding to mere virginity with that term here.

When I am talking about “virginity” in the context of this thread,
I am talking about
“virginity for the sake of the Kingdom”.

.

I just wanted to be clear here.

.
jack63 . . .

If somebody is truly capable of virginity or celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God and that has been given to them by God, then that is truly the superior choice, I would agree with that. They should not feel societal pressure to marry. I personally think this is rare gift.

You are correct jack63. It is a GIFT.

And this part of your reply is a good one.

About the CCC.

Recall the CCC (that you cited) in CCC 1620 footnotes St. John Paul II the Great and Familiaris Consortio.

The “development” cannot go from . . .

. . . . virginity for the sake of the kingdom is higher than the non-virginal state to . . . . .

. . . .virginity for the sake of the kingdom is NOT higher than the non-virginal state.

Let’s go to Familiaris Consortio to see exactly what St. Pope John Paul II the Great had to say there about this issue and what the CCC was citing in footnote 119 of CCC 1620 . . . .

Virginity or celibacy, by liberating the human heart in a unique way,[40] “so as to make it burn with greater love for God and all humanity,”[41] bears witness that the Kingdom of God and His justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value. It is for this reason that the Church, throughout her history, has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage, by reason of the wholly singular link which it has with the Kingdom of God.[42]

.

 

[Cathoholic]

babochka . . . .

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

Thank you for the etymological insights here.
(“Confessor” merely means people who “confess” Christ in one sense of the word.)

Would you mind citing me three “Confessors” in the Latin Rite Liturgical Calendar who were NOT ministerial Priests?