Priests right to marriage ... per the Paul ---- re: the Apostles & Peter

[brb2]

1st Corinthians 9:3-5 This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have THE RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WIFE, AS THE OTHER APOSTLES AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD AND CEPHAS [Peter] ?

Would appear the Early Church did not have mandatory celibacy for Priests. Why did the RCC have to go and make it mandatory … while the Eastern Church did not, following scripture & tradition ? Optional would seem fine … but, why mandatory ?

 

[NHInsider]

It is true that the early church did not mandate celibacy for priests. There are a number of reasons that the Western church eventually chose to require a vow of celibacy from secular priests (priests who were members of religious orders were already vowed celibates, obviously). The reasons were largely practical - problems having to do with inheritances, unchastity, and flexibility. Even Paul’s endorsement of celibacy was grounded in the practical - the married man is concerned about pleasing his wife, while the unmarried can focus on pleasing God.

 

[Abu]

Priestly Celibacy was an Apostolic Norm for the whole Church

While the fact of priestly celibacy is a discipline, it is also more than a discipline because it is an Apostolic norm from the choices made by Jesus, and Sacred Scripture attests to its roots.

Christ, by remaining celibate, wrote Pope Paul VI, signified his total dedication to the service of God and men (The Celibacy of the Priest, June 24, 1967). If Christ found celibacy to be central to His service of God and man, we should not be surprised if He finds the same to be central to the lives of His priests; to those who act in Persona Christi. The celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes.

Some are confused in quoting 1Cor 9:5. 1Cor 9:5 - “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a woman*, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

• In most English translations, the Greek word “gynikas” here is mistranslated as “wife” but there is no justification for it. Greek has no specific word for husband or wife and so uses the words “andros” and “gynikas” instead which mean “man” and “woman” respectively. It is only the context that can specify the marital meaning of the words.]

Is this verse talking about a wife? Not at all. If it were, it would be very peculiar. Every man was entitled to have a wife with him while he worked. It was the standard practice in the ancient world. What St. Paul was talking about was a woman charged with caring for his needs and that of his ministry. We see this during Our Lord’s ministry:

Lk 8:1: “Soon afterward [Jesus] went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.”

 

[Verbum]

Hi brb,

Celibacy is considered a more perfect state both in the gospels and in the writings of St. Paul. It is fitting that priests should aspire to a more perfect state. It is probable that the influence of the monasteries in the West was a major factor in making priestly celibacy an obligation.

Nobody is forced to be celibate because nobody is forced to become a priest.

Verbum

 

[grace_singh]

at the same time, Scripture does indicate to us that in the Early Church, local church leaders could certainly be married, and that there was no problem with this.

1 Timothy 3:1-4 indicates this, as does Titus 1:5. Peter was also married, as was Philip (he had daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9)).

there is really no Biblical justification for the mandate of priestly celibacy, though a church leader can certainly chose to remain unmarried and celibate for God’s sake.

 

[Abu]

Continence from the Apostles

Grace_Singh
Scripture does indicate to us that in the Early Church, local church leaders could certainly be married, and that there was no problem with this.
1 Timothy 3:1-4 indicates this, as does Titus 1:5. Peter was also married, as was Philip (he had daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9)).

This Phillip was not an apostle but chosen among seven to attend to widows (Acts 6:3-5).
Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

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).

Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

The Divine Master gave the example and indicated the rewards for continence as the Gospels make clear.

 

[peary1]

1st Corinthians 9:3-5 This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have THE RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WIFE, AS THE OTHER APOSTLES AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD AND CEPHAS [Peter] ?

Would appear the Early Church did not have mandatory celibacy for Priests. Why did the RCC have to go and make it mandatory … while the Eastern Church did not, following scripture & tradition ? Optional would seem fine … but, why mandatory ?

First, celibacy and chastity was always something practiced by hermits who were many in the earloy Church. They have a very long history, even predating the Church in Judaism. Monks carry on that tradition up to the present day.

You did not mention Saint Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 7:7-8 where he wishes that all ministers would be as himself - unmarried. But, he also says, if one can’t ‘hack’ it, then it is better to marry instead of burning up inside. Marriage is not imposed on those who work for the Lord.

Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus (ca 310-403), wrote in his Panarion: “Holy Church”, he says, “respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical cannons are strictly attended to.”

Epiphanius goes on, however, to explain that there are localities in which priests and deacons continue to have children, but he argues against the practice as most unbecoming and urges that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost has always in the past shown her disapproval of such procedure. But this evidence is inadequate to show that celibacy was passed down as a rule from Apostolic times. On the other hand, there are facts which tell the other way. The statement of Clement of Alexandria at an earlier date is open to no ambiguity. After commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, Clement adds: “All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be priest or deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children.”

The Spanish Council of Elvira passed canons for bishops, priests and deacons to remain celibate. The Council of Nicea also tried to do this but there began a divergence between the Eastern and Western church in this regard. It can also be said that rules were applied to the Eastern Church but not as strict. The Church in the East has the tradition that if a man is to be a priest, he can marry prior to Orders. However, if his wife dies, he cannot marry again. Bishops are celibate.

In the early Middle Ages, many clergy were having children both within and without wedlock. Also, there was the matter of heritage and land and wealth which was being handed down from generation to generation that was causing grave concern and a deterioration of religious life. The First Lateran Council in 1123 attempted to curb all of this by declaring the children of ecclesiastics as well as their wives to servile condition. The council also mandated that their offspring were debarred from sacred orders, and, in particular, incapable of succeeding to their fathers’ benefices. The inheritance of land was also forbidden, including to the wives or concubines.

So, there’s the scoop. There’s alot more to it, but this suffices as an explanation.

 

[Alan55]

The NT certainly supports clerical celibacy. But it also supports married clergy. Peter was married – Jesus healed his mother-in-law, and the only way I know of to have a mother-in-law is to have a wife. Mandatory clerical celibacy is not an apostolic institution but a decision by the Church well after the apostolic period. The Church could just as easily decide to permit Roman Catholic priests to marry, as it does priests in Eastern Catholic churches, Anglican and Lutheran ministers who convert, etc.

 

[Abu]

Peary1
Saint Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 7:7-8 where he wishes that all ministers would be as himself - unmarried. But, he also says, if one can’t ‘hack’ it, then it is better to marry instead of burning up inside. Marriage is not imposed on those who work for the Lord.

It seems that some Corinthians were inclined to think marriage sinful, a false doctrine taught by many later heretics associated with the idea that matter is essentially evil. Here Paul sees special grace to consecrate a married life to God no less than a celibate life. [Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953].
Paul’s statement does not relate to priestly continence.

Alan55
Mandatory clerical celibacy is not an apostolic institution but a decision by the Church well after the apostolic period.

Rather than a collection of bits and pieces concerning marriage, reality and truth demand facts. From the sound scholarship quoted in #6, we have seen that it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. This was for the whole Church.

“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.”
[George Sims Johnston, *Our Sunday Visitor, 1998]

“Recently it is more fashionable to claim that obligatory celibacy for the clergy began only in the 4th century, with Pope St. Siricius (384-399). Pope Siricius was affirming a norm already fixed long before his time in the tradition; he was not at all innovating a new norm.” The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003].

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hi brb,

Celibacy is considered a more perfect state both in the gospels and in the writings of St. Paul. It is fitting that priests should aspire to a more perfect state.

It still somewhat amazing that celibacy is “considered a more perfect state” even though marriage has existed since Genesis 1, and is created, ordained and blessed by God. Paul was expecting the imminent return of the Lord and advised those who were single or widowed to stay that way. But he doesn’t appear to be opposed to marriage.

I guess I don’t like hearing people say that marriage is a lesser choice, especially when it seems to so closely conform to natural and divine laws.

And there is no getting around that some of the disciples were married, that priests were married, and that it was not an issue for a long time (and not totally prohibited for about a 1000 years).

 

[Abu]

It’s good to examine when celibacy is superior to the married state

The superiority of the state of virginity or celibacy for the love of God is taught infallibly (Council of Trent, D.S. 1810), and Vatican II affirms this. “The crucial factor is the leading of a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12). One can be unmarried for any number of reasons, good, bad or indifferent.” Catholic Thinking, John Young, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre, 1990].

Also from the Magisterium:
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,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.
(Sacra Virginitas, Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII, 1954).

 

[brb2]

**

Priestly Celibacy was an Apostolic Norm for the whole Church** The celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes.

Some are confused in quoting 1Cor 9:5. 1Cor 9:5 - “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a woman*, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

• In most English translations, the Greek word “gynikas” here is mistranslated as “wife” but there is no justification for it. Is this verse talking about a wife? Not at all. What St. Paul was talking about was a woman charged with caring for his needs and that of his ministry.

Incorrect. Celibacy was not the Apostolic Norm … and certainly not obligatory.

Desirable ? Perhaps. Depends on the individual — Paul addresses cases where it may not be desirable.

No, the word used means WIFE … and the Context certainly tells us he means wife. Talks of Peter immediately thereafter to confirm his meaning. You are in denial my friend.

I have no problem with Church deciding to celebrate celibacy. But, its just another factor which many delay the reunion of the East with West. Why not be faithful to the scriptures ? Lets hold Early Church Tradition in the high regard we claim we do. Can’t we see where the Protestants can also call us out on this … as not being true to scripture or tradition ?

 

[Verbum]

Hi brb2,

Scripture has praise for celibacy as a higher state. Anyone wantdng to obey what scripture recommends is doing the right thing. As for East and West, Catholic priest of Catholic Oriental churches are allowed to be married.

Verbum

 

[Abu]

Prejudices must give way to facts – celibacy is the apostolic norm --further facts

While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory

“In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled.

This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.

“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.” (I Cor. 7:29). [Letter from Pope Leo to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne]. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy “which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘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 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book)."

Let’s have facts, not personal opinions.

 

[peary1]

The NT certainly supports clerical celibacy. But it also supports married clergy.

The Eastern Church has an optional married clergy.

Peter was married – Jesus healed his mother-in-law, and the only way I know of to have a mother-in-law is to have a wife.

**The only thing we know is that Peter’s mother-in-law lived with him in Capharnaum. Scripture does not say as to whether or not his wife was living or dead. Jesus healed the mother-in-law of Peter at his home. It would not be unusual that one’s mother-in-law had lived in the same house. Sometimes it even happens today.

On some other matters, according to information in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3). **

Mandatory clerical celibacy is not an apostolic institution but a decision by the Church well after the apostolic period. The Church could just as easily decide to permit Roman Catholic priests to marry, as it does priests in Eastern Catholic churches, Anglican and Lutheran ministers who convert, etc.

Yes, it could, but until it does, priests are to reamin celibate in their ministerial role.

 

[Abu]

Not only is Christ’s Church faithful to Her Scriptures, She is faithful to Her Tradition – a celibate priesthood – as many faithful Catholic scholars have shown. To deny this is a strange dilemma in which to be marooned!

Fr Ray Ryland explains the apostolic tradition of celibacy for all priests as attested by the then Cardinal Ratzinger holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp :

“In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction in 1858 that stated: "Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in Holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence. " 9

“That priestly celibacy is an apostolic tradition " is shown clearly and convincingly" by the work of Stickler, Cochini, Heid, and others. This is the verdict of then–Cardinal Ratzinger. 10”

Cardinal Ratzinger in The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements (note 10), explains the unity existing with and from the apostles, including priestly celibacy.
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal (Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, Zolibat in der friihen Kirche (Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
Notes
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, “Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code.” Eastern Churches Journal , Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.

10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements.” Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.