Jeff Miller always seems to more on top of Catholic news in Pittsburgh than me. :/ Anyhow, he mentions an article at KDKA about a press conference held by the Association of Pittsburgh Priests. They want Bishop Wuerl to voice their desire for optional priestly celibacy and ordination of women to next month's Synod on the Eucharist in Rome. Jeff makes some good observations about better ways for these priests to spend their energy (If the post weren't so short I'd quote bits of it for you folks). One question that he didn't ask immediately sprang into my mind as I read the story.
Why in Heaven's name hasn't Bishop Wuerl laid the smackdown on this heterodox organization yet?!
Here's another article.
"In response [to the priest shortage], the Pittsburgh Association of Priests — a group of priests and lay people — is proposing a controversial conversation. Bishop Donald Wuerl goes to a three-week meeting with church leaders in Rome next month."
"When he's there, some local priests want him to discuss two very radical ideas [optional priestly celibacy and women's ordination]."
For the record, the idea of married clergy is not radical. Priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite is a discipline, not a doctrine. The ordination of women, however, is a theological impossibility.
Yet another article.
"Along with the priests' letter to Bishop Wuerl the group also presented him with a petition signed by more than 28,000 Catholics backing their concerns."
*sigh* 28,000 poorly catechized Catholics. Please feed Christ's sheep, Your Excellency.
Update 10/03/05: Apparently Australia has a similar problem with heterodox priests.
Funky Dung
Comments 27
How lame. I frequently ask why it is that our Pontiffs simply refuse to take measures against the efforts of those who would harm the Body of Christ apart from within. I'm inclined to believe that the vast majority of our Bishops do, indeed, hold true to the Faith. Why is it that they were so slow to act against pederasty in the presbyterium? Why is it that they refuse to teach? Why don't they do the jobs that they are not only paid to do, but called to do? The inaction of our bishops does far more than simply allow heretical and schismatic rhetoric to slip into the body of thought present in the Church; a bishop's inaction causes the loss of souls.
I'm not saying that they need to bust out thousands of excommunications (although a few, here and there, would be pretty helpful), but, jeez, some public statements condemning erroneous propositions would be nice. People love to jump all over the Syllabus of Errors and the Oath Against Modernism, but, at least, people were completely unable to argue with them. When Vatican II called on the episcopate to take up more of the teaching slack, it was expected that the Church would be able to shepherd and teach effectively at the diocesan ("local church") level. A wonderful idea, but it obviously hasn't worked out that way. Our bishops simply don't have the resolve to do their jobs. They hide behind wimpy "resolutions" coming from "episcopal conferences." (I actually kind of take issue with the existence of episcopal conferences. What did Christ have in mind when he set out to form a visible Church? A vicar, in the person of Peter; high priests, the Apostles; presbyters; deacons; where are the episcopal conferences?)
"The floor of Hell is littered with the skulls of dead bishops."
++Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople.
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 6:46 am ¶Tom,
The bishops don't do anything because they and the clergy are loosing contol. Look at the staff at any church or diosese…mostly lay people and mostly women at that. In some dioseses even the chancellor is a woman. Also, unless there is a "correction" by Rome things will continue to go this way.
The arrival of the commision from Rome to go through the seminaries is a start. It is time to roll back the revisionist agenda at the seminiaries and the catholic schools. Of course the Church hasn't even had control of the Catholic colleges in the US since 1967 when 99% of them announced their separation from Roman control. If you go to most supposedly Catholic colleges or Universities you will see the most un-Catholic environment with every leftist and immoral position espoused in the the name of academic freedom. However, these Universities continue to call themselves "Catholic."
I would sincerely hope the Roman Catholic church take a look at the destruction of the Episcopal Church in the USA which is spirialing into schisim over some of the same issues. Womens ordinations and Gay bishops have turned into such divisive and destructive issues. By and large the women priests ordained are rampant feminists and many are active lesbians or lesbian activists. Hardly guardians of traditional values. The interesting thing is that some of the disaffected orthodox Anglicans are "swimming the Tiber" and converting to Catholicism individually or as whole parishes. We must remain the light on the hill to all orthodox christians that flee such dark places.
I am not against having married priests, but people have to realize it will radically change the priesthood and the parish, and raise many incidental issues (For one healthcare and house for the families of the Priest will be an added expense), but as Funky Dung points out it is not a doctrinal issue. Add to that when JPII reiterated the Church's position on the marriage of priests he didn't invoke the Seat of Peter (hence infoulability). Ordination of women, is another matter, it has NO, NADA, ZERO, theological or biblical basis. No matter how much the media and the feminists try to raise Mary Magdaline to the level of the Apostles. The old crones Nuns who keep pushing this are going to continue to be disappointed.
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 1:45 pm ¶Maybe it's providence that I've been blogging on the beauty of the priesthood in the past few days, and actually blogged on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Tuesday?
With that in mind, women should not be ordained priests….Christ did not choose any women to be His apostles; His mother Mary was not chosen to be one either! Granted women did follow Him, but all graces and duties of the priesthood were passed onto men.
As for married priests, highly unlikely. What happens if the priest divorces and then remarries? Will he still be able to say Mass?
The root of the problem, as Eric states, is catechesis. I've learned more about my faith as an adult by investing my time in it than I did in one hour a week in CCD. Granted I'm blessed with living very closely to the Pittsburgh Oratory and the great priests there, but not everybody has that chance….
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 3:40 pm ¶Roz, according to the Catholics and Orthodox, once a man is ordained (including the married Roman Catholic men in the permanent diaconate) he cannot remarry. Therefore a priest cannot remarry for any reason (even after being widowed) and remain in communion with his Church. Tom, do you know the history of this rule?
Orthodox and Eastern Catholic seminarians in North America can sometimes spend a LONG time between seminary coursework and ordination looking for a wife (and being a priest's wife is a special vocation in and of itself) who would be willing to marry a guy who will have a lousy-paying job and be at the mercy of bishops and parish councils.
Another reason not to consider a married priesthood a cure-all for vocaitons shortages.
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 8:34 pm ¶Not sure why you bring up the issue of divorce of married priests? I'm sure that a married priest who divorces and remarries, without an annullment, would not be in a state of grace for the sin of adultery just like any other Catholic. This means they wouldn't be allowed to receive communion and I would assume, therefore, allowed to say mass.
Keep in mind when we are talking about married priests, we are talking about "secular" or diocesan priests not those of religous orders. The rules binding the secular priests are much less restrictive and are more easily changed. It also is the case that rites of the Catholic Church (the Byzantine and Ukranian rites come to mind) already allow married parish priests. As we move towards unifying with other branches of Christianity such as disaffected Anglicans and some day the Eastern Churches, we are going to have to give in on this discipline.
We are already bringing in former Anglican priests who are married. It is likely this Pope will reverse on this issue which is not Doctrine but a discipline.
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 8:37 pm ¶This group has been a thorn in my side for some time. I had an issue with them in November of last year. I wrote about them in "Strangling Ourselves".
If I may suggest, you can read that post here:
http://powerballplace.blogspot.com/2004/11/strangling-ourselves.html#comments
They should not be considered true Catholics by any means.
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 8:47 pm ¶As a married Lutheran pastor, I obviously believe allowing Catholic priests to marry would be a good idea. The comfort, support and joy I receive from having a family goes a long way toward relieving the loneliness, burden and suffering that often go hand-in-glove with the ministry. I believe I am a much better pastor because of having a wife and child.
But my reason for commenting is not to argue with anyone about priestly celibacy. I actually want to voice my support for a male-only priesthood. I belong to the branch of American Lutheranism (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) that still does not ordain women (gays are not even on the map). I agree with many of the sentiments here expressed.
The ordination of women in most every other mainline protestant denomination has, in part, resulted in the defective Christology and neutering of God so prevalent today.
+0
Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 10:02 pm ¶Well, when "priests/pastors" marry, inevitably churches need to depend more on the voluntarism of the laity to sustain the works of the church.
I think that's a good thing so long as it is coupled with fostering greater biblical/theological literacy among the laity. In Sweden, it's common for evangelicals to take a year off and study the Bible. Of course, they don't have to pay for higher education and receive a subsidy from the gov't for studying and so it's easier for them to do that, but Ideally it'd be great if the same thing could be encouraged in the States.
dlw
+0
Posted 30 Sep 2005 at 5:21 pm ¶AFAIK (and as I see Jerry already noted), priests do not marry in the Western OR in the Eastern church. They may be married… but only before they are ordained. I think the wisdom of forbidding ordained clergy to marry (or remarry) should be obvious.
I agree that it is no quick fix to vocational shortage, but I also think in the long run it will open up the priesthood to otherwise very well qualified men, arguably better qualified than celibate men in certain respects. Yes, it will cost the Church a bit more $$, but the rate of undesignated giving in the RCC is pretty poor (from what I've seen)… the faithful will just have to give more.
+0
Posted 30 Sep 2005 at 10:50 pm ¶'cuz they're married to the church? And they all have the gifts of lifelong celibacy(and whatever other gifts are required for priests) or else they wouldn't have gotten ordained in the first place?
Sounds nice in theology, but you know what they say about doxy and praxy, they're intertwined….
dlw
+0
Posted 01 Oct 2005 at 1:55 am ¶dlw, It may also make things, shall we say, a little "cleaner" if the priests tend their flocks without getting into (licit and out in the open) romances with one of their parishioners.
If a priest could remarry after ordination, and let's say an engagement fell through, what then? I imagine he'd have to go to another parish, or the ex-fiancee would.
+0
Posted 01 Oct 2005 at 3:05 pm ¶I guess obvious is not so obvious. David, no, not obvious from a theological perspective, but obvious from a practical perspective. There is no "theology" per se' about celibate priests, ergo we say (and keep saying) it is discipline (unique to the Latin rite, btw) and not a doctrine. Jerry hit the nail (a rather obvious one I thought) right on the head. Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues… At any rate it is moot discussion. Priests may not marry (whether or not they may be married prior to ordination) in the RCC (any rite) or in the EOC (any rite of which I am aware). It's a closed (tho' perhaps not infallibly closed) question and has been for at least a millenium.
My $0.02
+0
Posted 01 Oct 2005 at 5:06 pm ¶Jerry,
According to my memory of Kallistos Ware, the rule of mandatory post-ordination non-marriage, in the East at least, dates to the sixth century for priests, deacons, and subdeacons (although the Russians are the only Orthodox to adhere to subdiaconal post-ordination non-marriage). Also, it was at this same time that it was decided that bishops must be taken from the hieromonks, the monastic clergy. As all monks of every rite are celibate, this is how the Eastern episcopate remained celibate.
I suspect that a firm rule of post-ordination non-marriage dates from about the same time in the West, although the numbers of Western priests who were married were always low, and, after an 11th-century Pope whose name escapes me laid a diriment impediment upon the ordination of married men, the numbers dropped to zero.
Interestingly, most of the Eastern Churches traditionally allow any cleric up to the rank of subdeacon to marry after his ordination, the only exception being the Russians. In the West, however, once a man received any of the minor orders, he was not allowed to marry. Of the eight Roman clerical orders, the four lowest (porter through acolyte) allow marriage before ordination, but the four highest (subdeacon through bishop) require celibacy. Marriage after ordination is not allowed at all in any of the Roman clerical orders.
+0
Posted 01 Oct 2005 at 11:44 pm ¶Thanks Tom, I figured you'd know.
+0
Posted 02 Oct 2005 at 12:06 am ¶gn:dlw, It may also make things, shall we say, a little "cleaner" if the priests tend their flocks without getting into (licit and out in the open) romances with one of their parishioners.
I don't see anything unclean with having a non-sexually active relationship geared towards marriage.
In the Baptist tradition, Pastors are supposed to be specialists in the study of scripture and church traditions, not super-spiritual types. Not that staying single and celibate makes one a super-spiritual type, it is a discipline people can undertake as they work for the church, but as I mentioned before, the health of the church really depends more on the extent the laity invests itself in its missions.
If a priest could remarry after ordination, and let's say an engagement fell through, what then? I imagine he'd have to go to another parish, or the ex-fiancee would.
Why would breaking up with a girlfriend/fiancee require changing parishes? It might be difficult, but provided it was not a sexually active relationship(and that would be problematic in and of itself.), it shouldn't be impossible to maintain a clergy-parishioner relationship.
I guess obvious is not so obvious. David, no, not obvious from a theological perspective, but obvious from a practical perspective. There is no "theology" per se' about celibate priests, ergo we say (and keep saying) it is discipline (unique to the Latin rite, btw) and not a doctrine.
We also have that discipline but only mandate it for people not married and do not exclude married-types from serving as specialists in the study of scripture and church traditions.
SN: Jerry hit the nail (a rather obvious one I thought) right on the head. Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues… At any rate it is moot discussion. Priests may not marry (whether or not they may be married prior to ordination) in the RCC (any rite) or in the EOC (any rite of which I am aware). It's a closed (tho' perhaps not infallibly closed) question and has been for at least a millenium.
Really, do you think that when it was adopted as a rule during a period of extreme nepotism in the church that it was truly meant to be kept from then on? Is the correlation between having the gift of lifelong celibacy and leadership/teaching/whatever that strong? As I understand it, Church leadership should be based on gifts with all Christians called upon to cultivate their gifts as they may.
But hey, I'm an estranged brethren who mainly has the gift of fallible discernment, what do I know without access to the direct line of apostolic succession?
dlw
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2005 at 12:28 am ¶dlw,
You've done this one a couple of times. You're not an estranged brethren, unless you've reproduced asexually, and there are more than one of you. You're an estranged brother (brethren = plural). Get it right!
(just joking around, dude. Interesting reply.)
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2005 at 6:21 pm ¶dlw,
On a more serious note. . .
"Really, do you think that when it was adopted as a rule during a period of extreme nepotism in the church that it was truly meant to be kept from then on?"
Yes. The thing is, clerical celibacy for all those in major orders (subdeacons on up through bishops) was the tradition in the West for time immemorial, although it never existed de jure until the eleventh century. Even in the eleventh century, when decretals were promulgated making celibacy mandatory in response to the Pataria movement against the nepotism you speak of, the number of actual married priests was very low, although the corruption wrought by them was enough to warrant making de jure what had been de facto for centuries. The anti-married priests decretals were intended to formalize Roman tradition; they simply came at a time when formalizing that tradition would be beneficial to the reform of the Church.
"Is the correlation between having the gift of lifelong celibacy and leadership/teaching/whatever that strong?"
I don't think so. In fact, I don't think that there's any correlation. But I think that you mistake the role of the Catholic priest. The priest is not truly the holder of any teaching office within the Church. The teachers and leaders of the Church are not those within the presbyterate, but those within the episcopate. Bishops, being the real inheritors of Apostolic authority, are the ones truly charged with the duties of teaching and leading. But, you'd probably ask, aren't bishops also required to be celibate? Yes, they are, and no, I don't think that there's a correlation between their duties and their celibacy. Bishops, through the receipt of the Holy Spirit in the episcopal consecration, receive a special character; their souls are ontologically different after episcopal ordination. It is in this consecration that they are given the office and authority to teach. The conception of the teaching office, in the Catholic Church, is rather mystical; being in the Apostolic succession, bishops have a teaching authority greater than that of a regular man, independent of what the gifts he is born with give him. If he's born a gifted orator with great eloquence, that's great, but not a necessary condition.
"As I understand it, Church leadership should be based on gifts with all Christians called upon to cultivate their gifts as they may."
I think we're operating on different conceptions of what "gifts" are. The most obvious answer is that those who are called are not necessarily gifted in one way or another before receiving the call. And I tend to believe that one of the gifts a bishop receives is his episcopal consecration, which grants him a special pontifical apostolate, which a bishop is, of course, called upon to cultivate.
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2005 at 7:13 pm ¶I guess I like the sound of brethren more than brother, which is why I keep making that mistake….
DLW:"Really, do you think that when it was adopted as a rule during a period of extreme nepotism in the church that it was truly meant to be kept from then on?"
Tom:Yes. The thing is, clerical celibacy for all those in major orders (subdeacons on up through bishops) was the tradition in the West for time immemorial, although it never existed de jure until the eleventh century. Even in the eleventh century, when decretals were promulgated making celibacy mandatory in response to the Pataria movement against the nepotism you speak of, the number of actual married priests was very low, although the corruption wrought by them was enough to warrant making de jure what had been de facto for centuries. The anti-married priests decretals were intended to formalize Roman tradition; they simply came at a time when formalizing that tradition would be beneficial to the reform of the Church.
dlw: Could you point me to a good source on that? And what does "time immemorial" mean? It surely doesn't mean all the way back to Peter. I'd be interested in reading more on how celibacy was organically emerging in the Roman Church as a requirement for priests.
dlw:"Is the correlation between having the gift of lifelong celibacy and leadership/teaching/whatever that strong?"
ToM:I don't think so. In fact, I don't think that there's any correlation. But I think that you mistake the role of the Catholic priest. The priest is not truly the holder of any teaching office within the Church. The teachers and leaders of the Church are not those within the presbyterate, but those within the episcopate. Bishops, being the real inheritors of Apostolic authority, are the ones truly charged with the duties of teaching and leading. But, you'd probably ask, aren't bishops also required to be celibate? Yes, they are, and no, I don't think that there's a correlation between their duties and their celibacy. Bishops, through the receipt of the Holy Spirit in the episcopal consecration, receive a special character; their souls are ontologically different after episcopal ordination. It is in this consecration that they are given the office and authority to teach. The conception of the teaching office, in the Catholic Church, is rather mystical; being in the Apostolic succession, bishops have a teaching authority greater than that of a regular man, independent of what the gifts he is born with give him. If he's born a gifted orator with great eloquence, that's great, but not a necessary condition.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern among a wide variety of Christians that when you can't explain something well to invoke the HS. If the HS has given those with teaching authority an ontologically different soul then how does one explain the great spiritual decline in those areas where Roman Catholicism is predominant?
Wasn't anti-semitism in the RCC also historically concentrated by those in positions in (teaching) authority?
And if most priests do not have teaching authority, doesn't that fail to equip many Catholics with the discipleship they need to be good Christians? Are you familiar with the Communication strategies of Jesus? In part because of my studies and background, I am very much against notions that made Christianity a two-tiered religion during the Medieval period. I tend to see this as more likely due to the Constantinization of Christianity than faithfulness to its traditions as handed down by the Apostles.
"As I understand it, Church leadership should be based on gifts with all Christians called upon to cultivate their gifts as they may."
I think we're operating on different conceptions of what "gifts" are. The most obvious answer is that those who are called are not necessarily gifted in one way or another before receiving the call. And I tend to believe that one of the gifts a bishop receives is his episcopal consecration, which grants him a special pontifical apostolate, which a bishop is, of course, called upon to cultivate.
What is "episcopal consecration" and what precedent does there exist for it in the Bible? I have to admit that I may be a bit in over my head here. I tend to follow the views of Charles Kraft in believing that the method of the Bible is a precedent for the Church. As such, I hold strongly to the admonition of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to test everything, hold on to the good. I also think of the Pastoral Epistles and how they in 1 Tim 3 describe the characteristics required for one to do ministry as an overseer or a deacon. Among the characteristics, including to be the husband of but one wife, is the ability to teach and the need for them to be tested before they are given a position of authority in the church. I don't see anywhere here a sense that the position itself bring spiritual empowerment that did not exist prior to their appointment.
And to make myself clear, I'm not saying that one can base all matters of ecclesial governance on the Bible, but I think that a consideration of biblical precedent is always needed and that when traditions develop that seem to be in tension with the Bible develop they need to be carefully evaluated in light of scripture.
dlw
+0
Posted 05 Oct 2005 at 4:50 pm ¶I'll post you a long reply tonight. A good place to begin looking, though, is the Catholic encyclopedia article on clerical celibacy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm).
Also, regarding episcopal consecration references in scripture, they're all over Acts (6:1-6, 8:18 ["the Spirit was given"], 13:1-3 ["The Holy Spirit said, 'SET APART for me Barnabas and Saul'], 9:17 [...laying his hands on him he said... the Lord Jesus... sent me... that you may... be filled with the Holy Spirit.]). Episcopal consecration is a sacrament, Holy Orders. It is the laying on of hands for the receipt of the Holy Spirit. It is how new apostles are made.
Catholics believe that episcopal authority comes by virtue of the apostolic office. That doesn't guarantee that people will listen to the actual teaching of the bishop in question, but it guarantees his legitimate authority as a teacher and shepherd in Christ's Church.
+0
Posted 05 Oct 2005 at 8:46 pm ¶One more quick thing.
"Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern among a wide variety of Christians that when you can't explain something well to invoke the HS."
In the matter in question, the Catholic Church is only invoking the Holy Spirit insofar as the first Apostles did.
"If the HS has given those with teaching authority an ontologically different soul…"
It's the other way around. The receipt of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands is what creates the ontological change in one's soul. It is by virtue of the receipt of the Holy Spirit in episcopal consecration that one has teaching authority.
St. Augustine outlines this very well. . . somewhere. . . maybe I can look it up later.
". . . then how does one explain the great spiritual decline in those areas where Roman Catholicism is predominant?"
We're talking about teaching authority, nothing more. Simply because someone has authority doesn't mean that anyone will listen.
"Wasn't anti-semitism in the RCC also historically concentrated by those in positions in (teaching) authority?"
First off, no. Most of the genuinely inflammatory anti-Semitic activity in the Church came from the laity and lower clergy, who regularly interacted with Jewish moneylenders. Pinchas Lapide's Three Popes and the Jews does a good job of explaining the role of the Church's hierarchs in medieval anti-Semitism; he concludes that, through it all, the Popes were, by and large, the greatest protectors of medieval Jewry. Secondly, even if it was the case that anti-Semitism was coming from the episcopate, it wouldn't really be salient to our debate, because episcopal consecration doesn't pretend to raise the character of one's soul.
+0
Posted 05 Oct 2005 at 8:59 pm ¶thanks Tom for giving good answers to my questions. Let me mull them some.
dlw
+0
Posted 06 Oct 2005 at 2:56 am ¶Thanks for asking good questions, dude. I really enjoy this sort of pleasant back-and-forth.
+0
Posted 07 Oct 2005 at 6:21 am ¶the Catholic encyclopedia article on clerical celibacy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm). .
Not to be rude, but do you of any corroborating evidence documented by non-Catholics or Liberal Vatican II Catholics? I don't tend to sources from parties that have a deeply invested interest in the matter.
regarding episcopal consecration references in scripture, they're all over Acts (6:1-6, 8:18 ["the Spirit was given"], 13:1-3 ["The Holy Spirit said, 'SET APART for me Barnabas and Saul'], 9:17 [...laying his hands on him he said... the Lord Jesus... sent me... that you may... be filled with the Holy Spirit.]). Episcopal consecration is a sacrament, Holy Orders. It is the laying on of hands for the receipt of the Holy Spirit. It is how new apostles are made.
Well, I guess this would depend on one's view of apostolic succession and the role of the HSpirit. The Protestant world view would argue that even though someone lacks a direct apostolic succession, one can still receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit and lead others to do God's will in innovative new ways. As I recall, the Holy Spirit evinced itself beyond just the twelve and Paul and Barnabus.
Catholics believe that episcopal authority comes by virtue of the apostolic office. That doesn't guarantee that people will listen to the actual teaching of the bishop in question, but it guarantees his legitimate authority as a teacher and shepherd in Christ's Church.
There are plenty of precedents in the Bible for the signs of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why offices are needed to "guarantee" the right people make decisions as to how the Church should let its light shine before the world.
"Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern among a wide variety of Christians that when you can't explain something well to invoke the HS."
In the matter in question, the Catholic Church is only invoking the Holy Spirit insofar as the first Apostles did.
I'm not sure that the invoking you mention in Acts was setting the sort of precedent that you imply it did. And if the key ingredient is, in fact, the Holy Spirit, I'm not sure the Holy Spirit can be boxed into our man-made rites.
"If the HS has given those with teaching authority an ontologically different soul…"
It's the other way around. The receipt of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands is what creates the ontological change in one's soul. It is by virtue of the receipt of the Holy Spirit in episcopal consecration that one has teaching authority.
I'm not convinced the RCC's history evinces that it's leadership has been led by the Holy Spirit in their actions. The Holy Spirit moves in unpredictable, not so deterministic manner. This emulates how the apostles cast lots for who would replace Judas and how the second born was often favored over the first. For the first shall be last and the last shall be first…often is how it goes… And it makes sense given that Christianity is most vibrant nowadays in the 2/3rds world.
". . . then how does one explain the great spiritual decline in those areas where Roman Catholicism is predominant?"
We're talking about teaching authority, nothing more. Simply because someone has authority doesn't mean that anyone will listen.
People don't listen when they don't trust the authority. You can label me a Donatist, but I do believe ecclesial governance matters for our witness to others and the continued vibrancy of the faith and think it is wrong that we neglect matters of ecclesiology in Protestantism.
The responsibility for the failures of Christianity lie on us Christians, and especially our leaders.
"Wasn't anti-semitism in the RCC also historically concentrated by those in positions in (teaching) authority?"
First off, no. Most of the genuinely inflammatory anti-Semitic activity in the Church came from the laity and lower clergy, who regularly interacted with Jewish moneylenders.
Once more, how about a non-Catholic source for that? As I understood it, the center for anti-semitism was initially the leadership and then later spread to the middle class…
Pinchas Lapide's Three Popes and the Jews does a good job of explaining the role of the Church's hierarchs in medieval anti-Semitism; he concludes that, through it all, the Popes were, by and large, the greatest protectors of medieval Jewry.
You probably mean later medieval Jewry. Three popes doesn't cover very much of RCC history.
Secondly, even if it was the case that anti-Semitism was coming from the episcopate, it wouldn't really be salient to our debate, because episcopal consecration doesn't pretend to raise the character of one's soul.
This is half meant to be humorous… I understand its not really my place to tell you all what you should be doing, but it does express why I'm not a Catholic, though I have been attracted to aspects of the faith since my college days.
But it equips one to be celibate for the rest of one's life? What's with the priorities of the Holy Spirit? People don't listen to you, you don't make better governance decisions, but you are insulated from needing to listen to other brethren and sistren of the faith about how we might govern ourselves?
dlw
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 4:09 am ¶"Not to be rude, but do you of any corroborating evidence documented by non-Catholics or Liberal Vatican II Catholics? I don't tend to sources from parties that have a deeply invested interest in the matter."
That's not rude at all. I seem to have read it in Bertrand Russell's book "A History of Western Philosophy." Also, you may want to look up the canons of the Provincial Councils of Elvira and Carthage (300 and 390, respectively). The third Canon of Carthage: "It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity." So there we see evidence that the Roman Patriarchate kept celibacy as a matter of discipline since the very beginning of the differentiation of rites in the early fourth century.
"The Protestant world view would argue that even though someone lacks a direct apostolic succession, one can still receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit…"
I agree.
"and lead others to do God's will in innovative new ways. As I recall, the Holy Spirit evinced itself beyond just the twelve and Paul and Barnabus."
Right. I'm not disagreeing. But those people simply weren't apostles. The thing is, episcopal consecration, like that seen in the New Testament, is the only means, ex opere operato, to receive the Holy Ghost for the faculty of teaching.
"I'm not sure why offices are needed to 'guarantee' the right people make decisions as to how the Church should let its light shine before the world."
I think you may have missed the point. The holding of episcopal office doesn't guarantee that the right man has been selected to make decisions. It only guarantees that the person consecrated has the proper authority to teach.
"I'm not sure that the invoking you mention in Acts was setting the sort of precedent that you imply it did."
Can you elaborate?
"And if the key ingredient is, in fact, the Holy Spirit, I'm not sure the Holy Spirit can be boxed into our man-made rites."
Why, then, did the New Testament figures think that it did? The rites imagined by the New Testament figures were equally man-made.
"I'm not convinced the RCC's history evinces that it's leadership has been led by the Holy Spirit in their actions."
And no one's claiming that the Church leadership is guided by the Spirit in all its actions. One wouldn't have to look far to find counter-examples (bishops moving molester-priests around, for example). The Catholic Church only claims that the receipt of the Holy Spirit guarantees teaching (NOT leadership) authority. Basically, only that the Church teaches truly. For example, the Church can do many things that are stupid. Catholics are free to claim that the Pope does idiotic things all the time. Catholics are not free, however, to hold that the Pope teaches heresy. That's why people are completely free to whine about priestly celibacy, but not about an all-male priesthood.
"The Holy Spirit moves in unpredictable, not so deterministic manner."
How is this model deterministic? Do you not agree that there are times when the Holy Spirit moves in very set ways, say, for example, in Baptism? If the Holy Spirit acts, ex opere operato, in Baptism, why can't He work the same way with Holy Orders?
"This emulates how the apostles cast lots for who would replace Judas and how the second born was often favored over the first."
How so?
"People don't listen when they don't trust the authority."
Right. But no one's saying that episcopal consecration guarantees that people will trust the bishops.
"You can label me a Donatist, but I do believe ecclesial governance matters for our witness to others and the continued vibrancy of the faith and think it is wrong that we neglect matters of ecclesiology in Protestantism."
Donatist! No, just kidding. I don't think you're a Donatist. I agree that ecclesial governance matters to the witness we give.
"The responsibility for the failures of Christianity lie on us Christians, and especially our leaders."
Right. St. John Chrysostom famously said that "the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
"'First off, no. Most of the genuinely inflammatory anti-Semitic activity in the Church came from the laity and lower clergy, who regularly interacted with Jewish moneylenders.'
Once more, how about a non-Catholic source for that? As I understood it, the center for anti-semitism was initially the leadership and then later spread to the middle class…"
Pinchas Lapide was a Jew. Read his book. It's interesting.
"ou probably mean later medieval Jewry. Three popes doesn't cover very much of RCC history."
The first half of his rather long book is a study of the history of medieval Jews in Europe, and is relevant to our discussion. The "Three Popes" of the title, Pius XI, Pius XII, and John XXIII, are dealt with in the second half.
"But it equips one to be celibate for the rest of one's life? What's with the priorities of the Holy Spirit?"
Not at all. Celibacy is a vocation that opens up many more doors, one of them being the episcopate.
"People don't listen to you, you don't make better governance decisions, but you are insulated from needing to listen to other brethren and sistren of the faith about how we might govern ourselves?"
Stop worrying about government of the Church for a minute. All anyone's claiming is that consecration as a pontiff gives one the authority to teach. That's all!
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 9:31 am ¶I'll try and respond later…
That is if Ales Rarus doesn't decide again somehow not to let me access http://www.haloscan.com
dlw
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 7:09 pm ¶Say what now?
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 7:18 pm ¶That's happened to me as well. Sometimes the links at the bottom of each post are dead.
+0
Posted 12 Oct 2005 at 2:46 am ¶Post a Comment