Posted on 09/13/2005 5:03:34 PM PDT by NYer
Well, OK, but all of the Apostles, including St. Peter, other than Paul apparently were married; many of the earlier Popes, at least as late as Pope Adrian in 872, were married and priestly cleibacy did not become required Church discipline until the Second Latern Council in 1139.
Not quite. The American Latin Rite bishops asked Rome to require celibacy of Eastern Rite clergy outside their traditional territory. This Rome did, but that decree is contrary to (the later) decree of Vatican II on the Eastern churches, which would take precedence. So there's, AFAIK, no legal reason to prohibit married men from being ordained to the Byzantine or other Eastern rite priesthood in the U.S. Also, there are a few married Latin rite priests, so the Latin bishops would have nothing whatever to stand on if they tried to enforce that rule today.
Thanks. I recall that that was the way I'd read it, several years ago.
... to require celibacy of Eastern Rite clergy outside their traditional territory.
But didn't that apply only to the USA or perhaps any other nations which requested a similar arrangement. It was not world-wide, was it?
... but that decree is contrary to (the later) decree of Vatican II on the Eastern churches, which would take precedence.
I've recalled a conversation with a retired Ukie priest maybe ten years ago. The topic of vocations came up, and he lamented that in the US married Ukrainian men could not become priests, because, he said, Ukrainian families treasured the family name being carried on through their sons, and thus many parents discouraged their sons from considering the priesthood.
Was he speaking anachronistically, remembering the pre-1960 situation, or is this still the situation in the USA today (whether by strict law or by common consent)?
A documented source for that claim, please?
and priestly cleibacy(sic) did not become required Church discipline until the Second Latern(sic) Council in 1139.
Incorrect. Suggest you carefully read the aforementioned work by Cochini. By the way, are you familiar with what Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira, circa 302 AD, say?
Not a single one of these "facts" are correct. You've apparently taken them from a propaganda piece rather than from any serious research into the matter.
You might also try Googling on, say: "celibacy 1139" or "celibacy Lateran Council".
Sorry.
You said that celibacy was first required of priests in 1139. That's false. Abstinence within marriage was always required; celibacy was preferred from the earliest ages; celibacy was required from the late 1000s but only because married men were not abstaining. SImply to say that celibacy was first required in 1139 is a half-truth that deceives
The only apostle whose wife is even hinted at is Peter but you wrote that all Apostles except Paul. We don't know whether Peter's wife was even living when Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. All that the scripture passage tells us is that at some point in his life he was married because he had a mother-in-law. There is no direct reference to Peter's wife anywhere in scripture. All you have is an indirect reference to one apostle's wife. To go from that to claiming that all the apostles except Paul were married is absolutely ridiculous--you don't have a shred of evidence for that, Saint Paul, the only one who ever addressed the issue (Peter did not) explicitly favors celibacy, so what direct evidence exists favors the exact opposite of what you wrote. Moreover, in this case you yourself could have checked the claim out so you have no excuse whatsoever for your false claim.
So every fact you stated was false. Each had a tiny element of truth (although your claim about the apostles has virtually no truth whatsoever to it) and a huge element of falsehood. Half-truths are the worst form of deception.
1 Cor 9 does not explicitly say that the other apostles had wives. Some have interpreted it that way but the passage itself does not say so.
Well, no, it doesn't: it mentions Peter's mother-in-law. Widowers have mothers-in-law. Nothing is said in tradition about St. Peter's wife, though a daughter is mentioned. For all we know, St. Peter was a widower when he met Jesus.
All the evidence indicates that St. John the Apostle lived and died a celibate. There's actually more evidence for St. Paul being married than there is for any of the other Apostles save Peter.
Eastern Rite priests today in the US are almost all celibates. Those who aren't were generally ordained abroad. However, as I point out, to enforce celibacy on, e.g., the Ukrainians is contrary to VC2. Some of the American Byz. eparchs have made noises about ordaining married men. It will happen eventually.
"The more ancient, pre-700 tradition, both east and west was either to ordain widowed men of a mature age who had not remarried as most men would have if widowed at age 30 or 35 or 40, showing they had learned to control themselves sexually"
Fair enough. I'd say that a tradition that has been practiced since circa 700 A.D. would certainly qualify as an organic tradition. The eastern Catholic churches are doing just fine with married priests and have been doing so for...oh, about 1300 years?
I have no problem with priests in the western (Roman Catholic) church being required to be celibate, and I do not advocate changing what is clearly the established tradition in the western church. Of course that's a matter for the western church to decide. I hope they won't change it, but that's up to them.
Conversely, I would hope that the much larger western church would refrain from attempting to force it's own organic traditions onto the smaller eastern churches. Unfortunately, history hasn't shown much restraint on the part of the western church in that regard. There's always hope for the future, though.
Nothing I wrote advocated forcing celibacy on Eastern Rites. Neither did the original article. Eastern Churches do, however, frequently portray their discipline as the most ancient, based primarily on the Paphnutius story. I explicitly said that the tradition back to 700 was ancient and deserved respect. So what's your quarrel with what I wrote?
No quarrel at all.
It's been my observation when discussing the celibacy issue that once the argument has been made that celibacy was the norm in the very early church, then the next argument is, ipso facto, that the entire church and more specifically the eastern churches should treat that as the norm. I anticipated that, and was incorrect to do so.
If offense was given, please accept my apologies as none was intended.
Clever response.
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.