For Catholic Church's Future, Tradition vs. Radical Change: Two Camps

CatholicVote.org ^ | 3-25-02 | Alan Cooperman

[Proud2BAmerican]

(From the article):

Janice Leary, a pastoral counselor and activist Catholic in Natick, Mass., said the church's first step should be to invite back into active ministry most of the several thousand men who have left the priesthood to marry in the past 20 years.

"I'm absolutely convinced that in my lifetime -- and I'm past the 50-year mark already -- I'm going to see married priests and women priests," she said.

Leary...must be related to Timothy Leary. That's the only way I can explain her thinking she's going to see women priests in her lifetime (or anyone else's lifetime)...And if she's past 50, she's more likely to see monkeys fly out of my butt than a revocation of the normal priesthood celibacy requirement.

[sinkspur]

We've got four Episcopalian converts in the diocese of Ft. Worth; I know two of them: Fr. Peter Hart and Fr. John Gremmels.

There are just over 100 Protestant converts serving in the Catholic priesthood today.

Their presence indicates that celibacy is not absolute, and that married men can serve as Catholic priests, and be effective, and be accepted by Catholics just as celibate priests are.

BTW, I obviously stand corrected on Neuhaus; I thought he was married.

[bejaykay]

proud2b says, "I just don't see how the case can be made that Rome allowing converted married men to become priests somehow undercuts the requirement of celibacy for entrants into the priesthood." I did not intend to imply that. I was simply stating that there ARE married priests. I was mostly responding to another who was trying to use it to make a point.

[Proud2BAmerican]

There are just over 100 Protestant converts serving in the Catholic priesthood today.

Do you have a source for this statistic? I've been (unsuccessfully) trying to dig it up on the Internet for quite awhile now, with no luck. Appreciate it.

Their presence indicates that celibacy is not absolute, and that married men can serve as Catholic priests, and be effective, and be accepted by Catholics just as celibate priests are.

Celibacy is, of course, a tradition that can change. I do not doubt that there are married men serving as priests who are every bit as good as their celibate co-workers. But the fact that the Church had an abundance of priests as recent as 40 years ago suggests to me that changing celibacy is not the answer to the priest shortage. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a proliferation of staunchly orthodox and obedient seminaries will fix the problem. And if what I've read is accurate, those seminaries are on their way to replenishing the ranks.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I did not intend to imply that. I was simply stating that there ARE married priests. I was mostly responding to another who was trying to use it to make a point.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you implied that. I was just referencing on your last post, discussing the subject at hand, and putting in my thoughts on the subject.

[AnalogReigns]

Why lay down a requirement for the priesthood, which Our Lord Jesus, and his apostles never laid down? You will find no requirement for celibacy for Church leaders in the New Testament (although of course chastity is a requirement, along with leaving homosexual behavior behind(for all Christians)). To the Corinthian church the Apostle Paul makes it sound preferable to marriage--and that may have had to do with the particular circumstances in Corinth at that time (persecution and a famine)(I Cr. 7). It's clear the St. Peter himself was married--as the gospels speak of his mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14), and St. Paul talks about Peter taking his wife along on his travels--as did other apostles ("Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (I Cr. 9:5) (Oh, I guess that passage also shows Mary must not have continued as a virgin AFTER Christ was born, seeing as He had brothers...but that's beside the point)

Since all Christians know the Bible is God's revealed will to us, I'll never understand the Romanist reliance on things of tradition not commanded by God in His word, over and above scripture itself.

[Salvation]

Why lay down a requirement for the priesthood, which Our Lord Jesus, and his apostles never laid down?

Oh, yes, he did!

"Seeing the fisherman, (I am paraphrasing here, but read it in your own Bible.)He said, "Leave your nets and come follow me." And they left everything and followed him."

Literal -- their boats and nets, but figuratively, their families, their belongings, indeed everything! Including previous relations that they may have had.

[Salvation]

brothers...

Can also be translated as cousins.

[John Locke]

Nope. The textus receptus is explicit; "hoi adelphoi tou kuriou". If the Apostle had meant "cousin" he would have said so; the word is "sungenes" and is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to a blood relative not "born of the same womb" - the literal meaning of "adelphos".

[Proud2BAmerican]

1. Many Protestants assume that whenever they read of Jesus' "brothers," this is referring to His siblings, other sons and daughters of Mary. But it is not that simple. "Adelphos," the Gk. word for "brother" in the NT, has multiple meanings (like the English word), and they all appear frequently in Scripture. In addition to sibling, it can also denote (1) those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3); (2) any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29); (3) persons with like interests (Mt 5:47); (4) distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5); (5) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (6) mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17); (7) the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17); (8) all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). Clearly, then, this issue is not at all settled by the mere word "brother"/"adelphos" in the Bible, and a more in-depth examination of the biblical data will be necessary.

2. "Brethren" - Biblical Exegesis

A. By comparing Gen 14:14 with 11:26-7, we find that Lot, called Abraham's "brother", is actually his nephew.

B. Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10,15).

C. Cis and Eleazar are described as "brethren", whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chron 23:21-2).

D. "Brethren" as mere kinsmen: Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Ki 9:13; 2:32; 2 Ki 10:13-14; Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.

E. Neither Hebrew or Aramaic has a word for "cousin." The NT retains this Hebrew usage by using "adelphos," even when non-siblings are being referred to.

F. In Lk 2:41-51, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, with no sign of any other siblings.

G. Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense (Mt 23:1,8; 12:49).

H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brethren" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary's "adelphe" in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! - thus even this usage apparently means "cousins" or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all "adelphoi". Since we know that  James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, it is likely that all these other "brethren" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Also, see this link:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

And this one: (Jerome against Helvidius)

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

[saradippity]

I am getting sick and tired of posting this but I had a mother-in-law for twenty years after my husband died and it's just as likely Peter was in the same boat as I was in.. His wife predeceased him.

The word Paul uses in Corinthians about the Apostles carrying wives,is the same word Jesus uses to address His mother at the wedding at Cana.

The bishop's and their limit on wives?The Apostles recognized they were dying off and Jesus had not yet returned. They had probably stayed with married couples on the road so they charged their former hosts in to guide the flock in the area.They did the best they could to not violate Christ's words about the sanctity of marriage (they could not tell them to put their wives away)and yet assure that if their wife predeceased them they did not marry again.That is why I believe Jesus only selected men who were not married to be Apostles.

It is my belief there is no scriptural support for marriage of those who dedicate their lives to bring Jesus to the world. Someone on a prior post gave you one passage that supports the celibate state and there are countless others. The young man who wanted to be perfect was told to sell everything and follow;eunochs for the Kingdom of heaven is another example. In that,it seems marriage is fine but that is another vocation. Paul always celibacy as the preferred state and I just can't find anything that supports your contention and either can anyone else,evidently.

[AnalogReigns]

The word Paul uses in Corinthians about the Apostles carrying wives,is the same word Jesus uses to address His mother at the wedding at Cana.

Oh, I see, Paul was addressing the practice of the apostles, who had left everything, traveling around preaching with their elderly mothers--yeah, that makes sense.

"When the solution is obvious, find a more difficult method (that coincides with Tradition, of course)" seems to be the Roman hermanuetic.

[AnalogReigns]

Biblical requirements for bishop (or elder)(same Greek word):

"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." (Titus 1:6)

"Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer[bishop or elder], he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus." (I Tim. 3:1-13)

Here we have two extended passages, in context, straight from the pen of the Apostle Paul--giving detailed requirements for Church leaders--and clearly the assumption is that they ARE married. As a matter of fact--a well ordered household is seen as evidence of making a very good leader.

Vague passages like "they left everything and followed him," must be taken in context with explicit passages which are indeed there.

Medieval inheritance problems probably had at least as much to do with the celibacy requirement as anything one can find in the Holy Scriptures.

Don't get me wrong, for certain kinds of ministry celibacy may be preferred--as St. Paul indicates--however a REQUIREMENT of it for any ministry, is simply not found in the Bible. Other explicit requirements ARE listed, but celibacy is not one of them.

[grumpster-dumpster]

I think I'm in my own "Camp."
I'm decidedly a "traditionalist;" but, want to see a more active laity.
Don't misunderstand me, the idea of "radical change," (allowing priests to marry, ordaining women, or substantially elevating the role of women in the church) is pure liberal nonsense... It would be like electing Michael Eisner pope.

I'm don't believe the "Church is out-of-control;" But I can attest to the fact that certain sub-organizations recognized by the Church are out-of-control. (Personal example: The local "Pastoral Council" at my parish.)

[Salvation]

want to see a more active laity.

This is coming! Evangelization is alive and well in the Catholic Church!

The local "Pastoral Council" at my parish

Are you attending their meetings. I attend probably half the meetings of our Pastoral Council. And I add my own input. How are members chosen -- a discernment process (everyone must agree) or a parish election (selection of the most well known people in your parish)??

I definitely think inviting the Holy Spirit to guide a discernment process in the selection of a pastoral council is the best.
Salvation

[BlessedBeGod]

McCloskey was on SPECIAL EDITION on FOXNEWS tonight. He was less than convincing.

That's odd -- I thought he was excellent. He was very articulate and convincing in his position on the scandal -- in fact, the most articulate and convincing I've seen interviewed yet. (Some of them have been awful.)

[BlessedBeGod]

We've got four Episcopalian converts in the diocese of Ft. Worth; I know two of them: Fr. Peter Hart and Fr. John Gremmels.

There are just over 100 Protestant converts serving in the Catholic priesthood today.

Do you know if all are married?

[Poohbah]

Many are. Basically, if they were married and ordained before being Catholic, then they become the few married priests there are.

[BlessedBeGod]

Since all Christians know the Bible is God's revealed will to us, I'll never understand the Romanist reliance on things of tradition not commanded by God in His word, over and above scripture itself.

And we'll never understand the Protestant reliance on things of tradition not commanded by God in His Word, like sola scriptura.