Saturday, August 24, 2019
Fr. Thomas Loya on the Married Priesthood
CWR: Married priesthood, celibacy, and the Amazon Synod: An Eastern Catholic priest’s perspective
The tradition of the Eastern Churches reminds us that the mutually exclusive dichotomy is not between marriage and priesthood but between marriage and monasticism.
One of the combox commentators recommended the work of Fr. Laurent Touze. From what is available on the internet, it would seem that Laurent Touze's L’avenir du celibat sacerdotal is more a work of theology than of history, relying instead on Stickler, Cochini and Heid, both of which are disputed by non-Latin historians. Does the author recognize that it was not always the case that bishops were celibate and unmarried, despite the preference of most Apostolic Churches now for such episcopal candidates? One article records his claim that that married priests in "Oriental rites" (not the Oriental Churches as they should be recognized) would eventually disappear [sic] as people slowly return to the "Tradition" of the "Church." Such a Latin chauvinism should not be unsurprising from an Opus Dei priest-academic.
The old Latin canard regarding Trullo/Quinisext has mentioned in the combox as well by those who are ignorant of the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church (as well as the Maronites) were not present at Trullo but nonetheless maintain the option of a married presbyters as being part of their received tradition, a fact Anthony Dragani points out in his review of Stickler.
Regardless of the theology to justify the current Latin discipline, Rome recognizes that the discipline is not a divinely-given precept but one that is ecclesial. As such, its non-observance by those priests who are not obligated to follow it is not a sin, nor is the belief that the discipline is mutable heretical. Latin theologians may justify their preference for the discipline through theological arguments, but theological arguments do not create a new divinely-revealed precept, and the judgment based on such arguments that the current discipline is better for the Church, that is the patriarchate of Rome, does not fall under any hitherto accepted Latin notion of infallibility. At worse such theologians, when denigrating the legitimate discipline of other Apostolic Churches in favor of their own ecclesial tradition, give the appearance of being like those whom our Lord criticized as elevating the customs of men over the Divine Law.
Related:
It is claimed that Roman Cholij has not renounced his work/historical scholarship on the question of the observance of clerical continence but he does accept the Byzantine discipline. Has the historical data been made definitively clear regarding the discipline?
The Council in TruIlo: Monogamy and the Ordained Priesthood - what does the author think of the recent decision by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then?
Mandated Celibacy Among US Eastern Catholic Priests Theme of Seminar in Rome
I see the St. Paul Center has a new apologetic for the Latin discipline: Why Celibacy?: Reclaiming the Fatherhood of the Priest by Fr. Carter Griffin
The tradition of the Eastern Churches reminds us that the mutually exclusive dichotomy is not between marriage and priesthood but between marriage and monasticism.
One of the combox commentators recommended the work of Fr. Laurent Touze. From what is available on the internet, it would seem that Laurent Touze's L’avenir du celibat sacerdotal is more a work of theology than of history, relying instead on Stickler, Cochini and Heid, both of which are disputed by non-Latin historians. Does the author recognize that it was not always the case that bishops were celibate and unmarried, despite the preference of most Apostolic Churches now for such episcopal candidates? One article records his claim that that married priests in "Oriental rites" (not the Oriental Churches as they should be recognized) would eventually disappear [sic] as people slowly return to the "Tradition" of the "Church." Such a Latin chauvinism should not be unsurprising from an Opus Dei priest-academic.
The old Latin canard regarding Trullo/Quinisext has mentioned in the combox as well by those who are ignorant of the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church (as well as the Maronites) were not present at Trullo but nonetheless maintain the option of a married presbyters as being part of their received tradition, a fact Anthony Dragani points out in his review of Stickler.
Regardless of the theology to justify the current Latin discipline, Rome recognizes that the discipline is not a divinely-given precept but one that is ecclesial. As such, its non-observance by those priests who are not obligated to follow it is not a sin, nor is the belief that the discipline is mutable heretical. Latin theologians may justify their preference for the discipline through theological arguments, but theological arguments do not create a new divinely-revealed precept, and the judgment based on such arguments that the current discipline is better for the Church, that is the patriarchate of Rome, does not fall under any hitherto accepted Latin notion of infallibility. At worse such theologians, when denigrating the legitimate discipline of other Apostolic Churches in favor of their own ecclesial tradition, give the appearance of being like those whom our Lord criticized as elevating the customs of men over the Divine Law.
Related:
It is claimed that Roman Cholij has not renounced his work/historical scholarship on the question of the observance of clerical continence but he does accept the Byzantine discipline. Has the historical data been made definitively clear regarding the discipline?
The Council in TruIlo: Monogamy and the Ordained Priesthood - what does the author think of the recent decision by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then?
Mandated Celibacy Among US Eastern Catholic Priests Theme of Seminar in Rome
I see the St. Paul Center has a new apologetic for the Latin discipline: Why Celibacy?: Reclaiming the Fatherhood of the Priest by Fr. Carter Griffin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)