I absolutely agree. Celibacy has never really worked, and for those who think of it as an inspiration to the laity, I would have to disagree. Too many of our priests are immature, not particularly faithful, and, due to the scandals, we are always wondering if they are really chaste. Celibacy has offered a hiding place for some very disturbed individuals. I have known many fine celibate priests, but I have also known some that I would not trust around children. I do realize that married men stray, but I find other married men to be more well adjusted.
“The husband of one wife” is prohibiting bigamy—remarrying after the death of the wife. This is because there was an expectation of continence. St. Jerome, who’s quoted in this article, says the following about Paul’s teaching:
“[Paul] does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children; but who marries one wife…You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children.”
What is missing is the Holy Mass. The priesthood exists because of the Mass. A priest offers sacrifice, and so sacrifice is the fundamental aspect of what the priest does.
The Apostolic Church had rules on abstinence: a cleric serving at the altar MUST abstain from marital relations prior to serving at the altar. We accept the fact that the Mass is a re-presentation of Christ's Paschal Sacrifice, and the priests who offered the Paschal lamb had to abstain from the marital act for a period of time before offering their services. The True Priesthood of the Church would then follow this pattern, as it assumes the role of the abandoned Levitical priesthood (I say abandoned because the Jews abandoned their religion when they rejected Christ, and created a false religion).
Fr. Adrian Fortescue, and other liturgical historians, point out that originally, Holy Mass was offered by the bishop, with assistance from the presbyters and deacons, only once a week (Sunday). That meant abstinence from the marital act from at least Friday onward.
Over time, Holy Mass was offered (in the West) more frequently. This meant more frequent abstinence. Seriously, what is the point of living as husband and wife when you can't engage in the marital embrace at all?
I am not surprised that the Concilar church would ignore the importance of the Mass. It seems like the Holy Sacrifice, without which everything would collapse according to St. Lawrence of Brindisi, is simply an afterthought.
Further, the present treatment of St. Paul is assuming a single interpretation: that the husband and wife would continue to live together after ordination. Historically, however, the pattern is NOT that simple. There are numerous cases in which a man and wife would separate after ordination. This historical pattern indicates that the Church interpreted St. Paul's admonition as a qualification for a good priest/bishop, not approval for married clergy
Service to Almighty is more important than temporal and sensual pleasures. Hence, St. Paul talks about "it is better to remain unmarried", and talks about marriage as a path for those who cannot restrain themselves. St. Francis de Sales, in his Introduction to the Devout Life, says that the gravity of Holy Communion "commands" that husband and wife refrain from intercourse prior to reception of Communion.
In the order of holiness, marital intercourse is far below service at the altar or reception of Holy Communion. It's not about being "impure", or "defiled", but setting your priorities. Until the "revolution in tiara and cope" of the 1960s, Holy Church was quite clear in Her Magisterium that intercourse was FIRST for the having and raising of children, second for the mutual good of the spouses, and third to relieve concupiscence. Union with God far exceeds union with your spouse.
I absolutely agree with you on the purpose of marital intercourse, but we have to acknowledge that the sexual urge is both strong and natural, and as God has given us a remedy, I see no reason for laying unnecessary burdens on men who would make excellent pastors. There are far too many examples of failures to maintain continence, especially as young, fervent men grow older and begin to experience the loneliness they could not have foreseen in their youth, and then there are the predatory types who entered looking for a way to have access to victims. I would much rather have married priests than fornicating or homosexual priests. Visions of a holy, chaste priesthood are wonderful, but they far too often run aground on the rocks of reality.
The issue is the Holy Mass. That's it. You want priests who serve the flesh, not priests who offer their lives as a sacrifice. The Church has spoken infallibly: the Holy Mass deserves priests that offer their lives as living sacrifice, which includes sacrificing the marital embrace. Surely, the Holy Mass is worth that!
However, the New Order is ostensibly different. It was admittedly crafted (I say admittedly because it's authors specifically said as such) to create a more man-centered service, as they thought the Mass that was received and approved by the Popes, saints, doctors, and bishops was too God-centered. I am fine with the New Order having worldly men preside over the services. I am not fine with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as provided to us through the centuries through the wisdom of Holy Church offered by such men.
Do you honestly believe that sexual failures did not exist under the Old Rite? I have heard too many stories from older people about priests and housekeepers, and not all of them can be unfounded gossip. In parts of Europe, clerical concubine was accepted because it kept priests away from the other women, and confessional boxes were designed to keep the priests away from female penitents. Are the liturgical offered by married priests of the Eastern Rites somehow unholy? Perhaps you should become a Shaker, or seek a pastor who, like Origen and the priests of Cybele, castrated themselves.
The August Sacrifice is the most pure Sacrifice of Christ, presented to God the Father in an unbloody manner. It is at the Mass where Christ descends on the altar and assumes the accidents of bread and wine. Christ, the Creator, the Logos, is physically present on the altar. It is the most profound and amazing thing since the Incarnation. It deserves the utmost attention and respect. It deserves men who have committed themselves to the salvation of souls through lives of sacrifice.
To demean the office of the priesthood to include men with worldly concerns is to demean the purpose of the priesthood: the Holy Sacrifice. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable with the New Order. The New Order has redefined the essence of the Mass (see the 1969 GIRM, officially promulgated under the authority and name of Paul VI), as well as the priesthood (it is no longer about sacrifice, see Lumen Gentium). For a Catholic priest, offering the Catholic Mass, however, a celibate clergy is required simply to give an homage to the holiness of the Mass.
I absolutely agree. Celibacy has never really worked, and for those who think of it as an inspiration to the laity, I would have to disagree. Too many of our priests are immature, not particularly faithful, and, due to the scandals, we are always wondering if they are really chaste. Celibacy has offered a hiding place for some very disturbed individuals. I have known many fine celibate priests, but I have also known some that I would not trust around children. I do realize that married men stray, but I find other married men to be more well adjusted.
Women elders would have been designated as presbyteras not presbyteros. I have yet to find a presbytera in the New Testament; have you?
“The husband of one wife” is prohibiting bigamy—remarrying after the death of the wife. This is because there was an expectation of continence. St. Jerome, who’s quoted in this article, says the following about Paul’s teaching:
“[Paul] does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children; but who marries one wife…You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children.”
Jerome, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm, 1:34.
You are a dishonest hack.
What is missing is the Holy Mass. The priesthood exists because of the Mass. A priest offers sacrifice, and so sacrifice is the fundamental aspect of what the priest does.
The Apostolic Church had rules on abstinence: a cleric serving at the altar MUST abstain from marital relations prior to serving at the altar. We accept the fact that the Mass is a re-presentation of Christ's Paschal Sacrifice, and the priests who offered the Paschal lamb had to abstain from the marital act for a period of time before offering their services. The True Priesthood of the Church would then follow this pattern, as it assumes the role of the abandoned Levitical priesthood (I say abandoned because the Jews abandoned their religion when they rejected Christ, and created a false religion).
Fr. Adrian Fortescue, and other liturgical historians, point out that originally, Holy Mass was offered by the bishop, with assistance from the presbyters and deacons, only once a week (Sunday). That meant abstinence from the marital act from at least Friday onward.
Over time, Holy Mass was offered (in the West) more frequently. This meant more frequent abstinence. Seriously, what is the point of living as husband and wife when you can't engage in the marital embrace at all?
I am not surprised that the Concilar church would ignore the importance of the Mass. It seems like the Holy Sacrifice, without which everything would collapse according to St. Lawrence of Brindisi, is simply an afterthought.
Further, the present treatment of St. Paul is assuming a single interpretation: that the husband and wife would continue to live together after ordination. Historically, however, the pattern is NOT that simple. There are numerous cases in which a man and wife would separate after ordination. This historical pattern indicates that the Church interpreted St. Paul's admonition as a qualification for a good priest/bishop, not approval for married clergy
So a person is defiled by marital intercourse?
Service to Almighty is more important than temporal and sensual pleasures. Hence, St. Paul talks about "it is better to remain unmarried", and talks about marriage as a path for those who cannot restrain themselves. St. Francis de Sales, in his Introduction to the Devout Life, says that the gravity of Holy Communion "commands" that husband and wife refrain from intercourse prior to reception of Communion.
In the order of holiness, marital intercourse is far below service at the altar or reception of Holy Communion. It's not about being "impure", or "defiled", but setting your priorities. Until the "revolution in tiara and cope" of the 1960s, Holy Church was quite clear in Her Magisterium that intercourse was FIRST for the having and raising of children, second for the mutual good of the spouses, and third to relieve concupiscence. Union with God far exceeds union with your spouse.
I absolutely agree with you on the purpose of marital intercourse, but we have to acknowledge that the sexual urge is both strong and natural, and as God has given us a remedy, I see no reason for laying unnecessary burdens on men who would make excellent pastors. There are far too many examples of failures to maintain continence, especially as young, fervent men grow older and begin to experience the loneliness they could not have foreseen in their youth, and then there are the predatory types who entered looking for a way to have access to victims. I would much rather have married priests than fornicating or homosexual priests. Visions of a holy, chaste priesthood are wonderful, but they far too often run aground on the rocks of reality.
The issue is the Holy Mass. That's it. You want priests who serve the flesh, not priests who offer their lives as a sacrifice. The Church has spoken infallibly: the Holy Mass deserves priests that offer their lives as living sacrifice, which includes sacrificing the marital embrace. Surely, the Holy Mass is worth that!
However, the New Order is ostensibly different. It was admittedly crafted (I say admittedly because it's authors specifically said as such) to create a more man-centered service, as they thought the Mass that was received and approved by the Popes, saints, doctors, and bishops was too God-centered. I am fine with the New Order having worldly men preside over the services. I am not fine with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as provided to us through the centuries through the wisdom of Holy Church offered by such men.
Do you honestly believe that sexual failures did not exist under the Old Rite? I have heard too many stories from older people about priests and housekeepers, and not all of them can be unfounded gossip. In parts of Europe, clerical concubine was accepted because it kept priests away from the other women, and confessional boxes were designed to keep the priests away from female penitents. Are the liturgical offered by married priests of the Eastern Rites somehow unholy? Perhaps you should become a Shaker, or seek a pastor who, like Origen and the priests of Cybele, castrated themselves.
The August Sacrifice is the most pure Sacrifice of Christ, presented to God the Father in an unbloody manner. It is at the Mass where Christ descends on the altar and assumes the accidents of bread and wine. Christ, the Creator, the Logos, is physically present on the altar. It is the most profound and amazing thing since the Incarnation. It deserves the utmost attention and respect. It deserves men who have committed themselves to the salvation of souls through lives of sacrifice.
To demean the office of the priesthood to include men with worldly concerns is to demean the purpose of the priesthood: the Holy Sacrifice. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable with the New Order. The New Order has redefined the essence of the Mass (see the 1969 GIRM, officially promulgated under the authority and name of Paul VI), as well as the priesthood (it is no longer about sacrifice, see Lumen Gentium). For a Catholic priest, offering the Catholic Mass, however, a celibate clergy is required simply to give an homage to the holiness of the Mass.
St Paul was a good guy and all but the Authority in the end rests with St Peter