Posted on 05/25/2005 10:35:49 PM PDT by sinkspur
THE leader of Scotland's Catholics has risked reigniting a row over married priests by predicting the Vatican will eventually relent and allow the practice.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, said the success of married deacons in the church means the change is likely.
The church leader has upset traditional Catholics in the past with his views on celibacy, homosexuality and the priesthood.
His latest comments were made in an interview with the Catholic Times, which will be published on Sunday,
Asked if he believed married priests will become a reality, he said: "Having seen something of the apostolate of married deacons, I can foresee the day when there will be married priests."
The Cardinal has angered conservative Catholics in the past with his acceptance of gay priests, as long as they remained celibate.
However, since being elevated to the College of Cardinals he has espoused views more in line with Vatican teachings. Cardinal O'Brien's latest comments drew criticism from the right-wing Catholic Truth movement.
A spokesman for the group said: "He is trying to say that he is not necessarily personally in favour of this but we can debate it. It's a sleekit way of trying to have his cake and eat it."
However, a poll of 80 Catholic priests in Scotland conducted only last month suggested 40 per cent believed they should be allowed to marry, but the issue remains thorny to many conservative Catholics.
Cardinal O'Brien gained a reputation as a liberal after he said in 2002, before he became a cardinal, that he saw no end to theological argument against celibacy within the priesthood.
A day later he issued a joint statement with Mario Conti, the archbishop of Glasgow, in which the pair said: "While no-one would suggest clerical celibacy is an unchangeable discipline, we believe it has an enormous value."
The following year he risked angering conservatives again when he broached the subject of married priests.
He said in a thanksgiving mass that the church should have "at every level" a discussion about clerical celibacy.
He said the argument for married priests was supported by the case of married Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism and been allowed to continue their ministries.
However, at the ecclesiastical senate in Rome in October 2003, he made a statement at the end of the Nicene Creed in which he affirmed support of the church's teachings on celibacy, contraception and homosexuality.
It was claimed at the time, but denied, that the added words were said under pressure from the Vatican.
Since then the Cardinal has been careful not to speak out on any of the issues that caused so much controversy.
A spokesman for the Church said today that the Cardinal's comments were not incompatible with his profession of faith in 2003.
He said: "It is a neutral comment on the issue, it is neither a ringing endorsement of the concept, neither is it an outright denunciation."
I couldn't agree with you more. Kolokotronis is a true gentleman and a holy intellectual. I, on the other hand, am a smart aleck provocateur who believes in Christ and His Church. I love my protestant brothers and sisters. I'm on your side 99.9 percent of the time. But I'm afraid I can't resist teasing you when you start to make theological arguments. Others will respond to you with more tact.
Oh, so it's "Ann Alex."
I thought it was "Anna Lex," as though you were into law or words or something.
I thought the same thing. How are we to know if you're posting as Ann or Alex?
In haste, the word hieros usually meant sacred when used by the Fathers. Presbeteros meant then and means now a priest, like the parish priest. The more usual place to find the use of hieros is in hieromonk which means a monk who is a priest or hierodeacon, a monk who is a deacon. In more ancient Greek, interestingly enough, hieros was the word for a pagan priest, not presbyteros. Help any?
Ann is Protestant, -- how can she post?
I tag her name along so she can receive the Word.
Seamole and Biblewonk had a roundabout discussion centered on the notion that since presbuteros also means "elder", perhaps the Church did not really have priests but rather, administrators and then wonks serving memorial lunch. Like the one I just had, with tequila.
Ah ha. Now I see how you've come by your immense patience with Luther's heirs. I have a few protestants in the family too (cradle Catholics turned evangelical). We love arguing. But we're always good natured about it. After all, we agree that Christ is Lord. That alone goes a long way.
Mind if this Maronite 'pretender' jumps back into the discussion? Perhaps the following, from Marty Barrack, a Jewish convert, will clarify the history of the priesthood.
God’s Authority
God has always directly connected the authority of those who speak for Him with His own authority.
The Torah
Every Torah scroll is made from living creatures. The parchment is lambskin, ritually prescribed sinews hold the pages together, and plants provide the ink. Jewish tradition holds that God dictated Torah to Moses as a stream of Hebrew letters, one at a time. Jewish scribes who hand copy Torah scrolls are extremely careful to preserve the exact sequence, not adding or subtracting even a single letter. Jesus referred to that tradition when He said, “Till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Mt 5:18) An iota is a yod, the smallest Hebrew letter. A dot is the smallest part of a Hebrew letter. The Torah in every synagogue is an exact copy of an exact copy of an exact copy . . . of the Torah that God inspired Moses to write down by hand.
The Jewish Priest
God also instituted the Jewish priesthood through Moses, “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him . . .” (Gn 28:1) “Thus you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.” (Gn 29:9) “The holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them and ordained in them.” (Gn 29:29) It was to be a hereditary priesthood. Every Jewish priest descended from a priest who descended from a priest who descended from a priest . . . who descended from Aaron, who was ordained by Moses at God’s command. God directly connected every Jewish priest’s authority to sacrifice with His authority.
The Catholic Priest
Jesus told us, “I am the good shepherd.” (Jn 10:11) The Good Shepherd established His vicar on earth by directing Peter, “Feed My lambs . . . Tend My sheep . . . Feed My sheep” (Jn 21:15). Jesus gave His Apostles a worldwide mission, hence successors, with the command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . .” (Mt 28:19). He guaranteed the teaching of the Apostles and their successors, “I am with you always” (Mt 28:20). St. Paul documented the Apostles’ authority to appoint successors, and the successors’ to appoint other successors: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might . . . appoint elders in every town as I directed you . . . For a bishop, as God’s steward, must . . . hold firm to the sure word as taught” (Titus 1:5). The Apostles enrolled Matthias (Acts 1:25) to replace Judas and appointed deacons (Acts 6:6) as assistants. The descended Holy Spirit immediately highlighted the Church’s worldwide mission. Peter and the other Apostles spoke in their own language to the devout Jews of Jerusalem who had come from every nation under heaven, yet each Jew heard in his own native language. “And they were amazed and wondered, saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?’” (Acts 2:7)
Jesus told His Apostles, and by extension their successors, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (Mt 10:40) That authority has crossed the centuries in a continuing line of apostolic succession. Every pope is the successor of Peter. Every Catholic bishop, priest, and deacon was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone . . . who was personally ordained at the Last Supper by Jesus Himself. The Son of God directly connected every Catholic priest’s authority to offer the Sacrifice with His authority.
Why Jews Are Better Off in the Catholic Church Than in the Jews for Jesus
(I'm off to a meeting but will catch up with you later :-)
"Your friend Kolokotronis doesn't strike me as one who would be inclined to turn his back on an honest debate. It would also be a huge surprise if he would either sink to your level of name-calling or join in the hedonism of the mob-mentality gabfest of late."
Sometimes I surprise even my partisans with the levels I sink to, being as I am the grandson of simple Greek peasants, but I appreciate the kind words. You know, one of the benefits of reading the Fathers is that when we do "miss the mark" of being Christlike as best we can, the Fathers and their words rise up before us as a sort of reproach and a reminder that we have a long way to go before we can "die to the self" and fulfill God's will for us that we become like God, that we attain what the Fathers call "theosis" which is sort of what you in the West call salvation, but at base it is a very different concept. At any rate, someone asked about what the Fathers had to say about the priesthood. The Fathers, as we all know, were the great spiritual athletes of the Church, inspired by the grace of God to come to an understanding of the Scriptures and God's Will for us. The Fathers were not individually infallible, but The Church believes that the consensus patrum is. Among the very greatest of the Fathers was +John Chrysostomos, my patron saint. His statement on the priesthood is a sterling example of patristic thought:
"He who honors the priest, will honor God also; and he who has learned to despise the priest, will in process of time insult God. 'He who receives you,' He says, 'receives Me' (Matt. 10:40). 'Hold your priests in honor' (Ecclus. 7:31), He says. For when a man is piously disposed towards the priest, he is much more so towards God. And even if the priest is wicked, God seeing that you respect him, though unworthy of honor, through reverence to Him, will Himself reward you. For if 'he who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward' (Matt. 10:41), then he who honors and submits and gives way to the priest will certainly be rewarded. Do you know what the priest is? He is an angel of the Lord. If you despise him, you despise not him, but God who ordained him.
But how does it appear, you ask, that he is ordained of God? If God works nothing through his means, you have neither laver, nor are a partaker of the Mysteries, nor of the benefits of blessings; you are therefore not a Christian. What then, you say, does God ordain all, even the unworthy? God indeed does not ordain all, but He works through all, though they be themselves unworthy, so the people may be saved. For if He spoke, for the sake of the people, by an ass, and by Balaam, a most wicked man (Num. 22,23,31), much more will He speak by the mouth of the priest. What indeed will not God do or say for our salvation? By whom does He not act? For if He wrought through Judas and those others who 'prophesied' ... will He not much more work through the priests?
If we may not judge our brother, much less our teacher, let each attend to his own department. For if he teaches perverted doctrine, though he be an angel, do not obey him; but if he teaches the truth, take heed not to his life, but to his words. You are a sheep, do not be curious concerning the shepherd, lest you have to give account of your accusations against him. It is not he who speaks to you. It is Christ who thus admonishes you. But you say, 'He ought to be better than I.' Why? 'Because he is a priest'. If he is not better, ought you therefore to destroy yourself? These are the words of arrogance. Hear what Christ says, 'Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment' (Matt. 12:36).
Let us reverence that day on which he enlightened us. He who has a father, whatever faults he has, conceals them all. For it is said, 'Do not glory in the dishonor of your father, for your father's dishonor is no glory to you. And if his understanding fails, have patience with him' (Ecclus. 3:10-12). And if this is said of our natural fathers, much more of our spiritual fathers. Approach him with pious respect. Do not say he is wicked. What of that? Does one who is wicked of himself bestow great benefits on you? By no means. Everything works according to your faith. The priest performs a symbol. The Offering is the same, whether a common man, or Paul or Peter offer it. It is the same which Christ gave to His disciples, and which the priests now minister. This is in no way inferior to that, because it is not men who sanctify even this, but the Same who sanctified the one also sanctifies the other. So the world is of one faith. The Spirit immediately fell upon Cornelius, because he had fulfilled his part, and contributed his faith." St. John Chrysostom. Homily II on II Timothy I
What do you mean 'pretender'? The Maronites have claimed you as our own. And we're not letting go! If we did, the Greek Orthodox would snatch you up before we could say "Saint Sharbel, pray for us."
Always good to study the Fathers. So much we can learn from their wisdom.
And they wonder why I can't resist poking fun of them...
This is a particularly difficult lesson in light of the crisis going on today in the Church -- and even in light of the article that started this whole thread. But it's a great reminder. Thanks for posting it, K.
One quick question, when he writes, "The priest performs a symbol", what symbol is he referring to? He doesn't mean the Eucharist, does he? I ask that because I didn't think he would refer to the Eucharist as a symbol.
'Wonk,
Here's another take on your wanting to hear any Biblical justification for the Catholic priesthood (as opposed to the priesthood of all believers). I'm not sure it's there but, maybe you'll find it.
#448 is also about the priesthood; you might want to check it out. I can only guess you were left off the ping list by accident.
Kolokotronis,
Thanks for your input. As it is biblewonk's ox being gored (or, biblewonk goring the ox, take your pick), I'll step aside. He's the Bible scholar.
""The priest performs a symbol", what symbol is he referring to? He doesn't mean the Eucharist, does he? I ask that because I didn't think he would refer to the Eucharist as a symbol."
NO no no! The Greek means that he, the priest, steps into a role but in the sense of being a tool or conduit; not a real good translation I'm afraid.
"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him." St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6;
"This is a particularly difficult lesson in light of the crisis going on today in the Church -- and even in light of the article that started this whole thread. But it's a great reminder."
The danger of succumbing to the difficulty, which in America has happened in spades, is not encouragment of sin and depravity or its cover up which are always wrong, but rather Donatism which is heresy.
Yes, that's what I thought. I figured he meant that the priest is the symbol -- acting 'in Persona Christi'.
This is what I love about your posts! You pull it all together for us. Yes, indeed it is the error of Donatus, isn't it. And it is just as relevant today as it was in Constantine's time.
Now I lost you both. The tragedy of faithless priests is a tragedy in itself, regardless of doubts one may have concerning the sacraments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.