What is Reddit's opinion of
Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
9 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
There is a lot of research on this topic. All signs point to a very early tradition of continence linked to the celebration of the Eucharist. Continence is the period of abstaining from sexual intercourse. The research is rather compelling that points to a tradition of, once you were ordained, practicing perfect continence...even in marriage.
From this, celibacy is a very practical and prudent call. Early Church history shows that the precept to remain continent was more prudent for a celibate, not married, clergy.
If you want a good academic work, this work is great:
Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0898709512/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_1GT9Cb5YKH05W
My fundamental problem with the Eastern practice of married clergy is that, unless someone is going to tell me otherwise, it doesn't require continence.
The ancient tradition in the Church, regardless of East or West, is the requirement for continence. There has been very compelling research on this in the last two decades. The West has admitted married clergy in more recent times (as is always the prerogative of the Pope), but because of celibacy, the question of continence as such hasn't come up (not talking about sin).
This is my complaint. I think the idea of "reinstating" in a larger way married clergy in the West is theologically incorrect with the tradition if it doesn't have the idea of continence in said marriage. I think the East has erred in this practice, as there is a demonstrable change in practice in this regard...again, unless I'm reading it wrong and Eastern clerics are required to be continent in their marriages.
https://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Origins-Priestly-Celibacy-Christian/dp/0898709512
And there's a follow-up book.
>What is being gotten rid of is not only a “ecclesiastical discipline” subject to change, but a law of the Church based on a precept of divine and Apostolic origin.
I have no opinion about the claim in this article, either it will or it won’t happen that married priests will be ordained in the Amazon or not, or in Germany or not...I have no way of knowing.
But what galls me is that there is a real, serious theological issue at play here. There are two distinct sides, and only one is right.
Either perfect clerical continence (which celibacy protects in this age) is a perfectly changeable and optional discipline based on nothing deeper (which is the opinion I typically see in this sub) OR it is, as Cardinal Sarah writes, “not a simple canonical discipline.”
Sarah’s position, and Benedict’s, and Cardinal Stickler’s before him, is that perfect continence is an apostolic tradition and cannot be changed.
These are the two sides. This is serious. We have serious, respected Catholic predates on one side telling us this should not be changed. At very least, we should to try understand their position. They may be wrong, but it deserves a look.
Here are the things people seem to constantly confuse:
- Married priests in early Church =/= Amazonian priests
People trying to debate this online always fail to distinguish that while there were married priests in the early Church, they apparently renounced their sex lives when they were ordained. As Pope Emeritus Benedict writes:
>The ability to renounce marriage in order to place oneself totally at the Lord’s disposal is a criterion for the priestly ministry. As for the concrete form of celibacy in the ancient Church, it should also be pointed out that married men could only receive the sacrament of Holy Orders if they had committed themselves to sexual abstinence, that is to say, to a Josephite marriage. Such a situation seems to have been quite normal during the first centuries.
But, that type of married priest is not what is being discussed for the Amazon. No one is suggesting these men make a vow of perpetual continence. For Benedict and Sarah, this is a big change to a rule which has been followed in the West since apostolic times.
2.but the Easterns have married priests!
Yes, they do, and somebody changed. In earliest times, priests were expected to be perpetually, perfectly continent. Now, eastern priests are not. Don’t invoke the eastern Churches as a viable example unless you can prove that they did not change this.
Eastern Catholics debating online like to use verbal sleight of hand and act as if married priests in the early Church were sexually active. They should attempt to prove this before using it.
- It’s just a discipline!
This is the rub. Every discipline supports a truth. Celibacy is a discipline which supports a truth, and Benedict and Sarah (along with Stickler and Cochini and others) claim that the truth which celibacy supports is the necessary, perfect, and perpetual continence of priests.
IF they are right, then this principle was given by Christ to the Apostles when he ordained them. That’s what Pope Siricius said. He said that the Jewish priests had periodic continence (they lived apart from their wives, and had no sex, during their period of ministry) but that Christ perfected this law for the Christian priesthood. That’s apparently what the early Church believed.
And IF they are right about this, then there are only two types of Catholic priests possible - celibate ones, and married ones who have made a promise of perpetual continence.
The upshot of their claim is that the easterns are wrong about this.
SO - if you want to argue in favor of a married, sexually active priesthood, know what you are arguing against.
You are not arguing for the discontinuation or exception of a simple, changeable discipline. You are, in the opinion of Benedict and Sarah and other serious people, arguing against a principle given by Christ to the apostles.
They could be very wrong. But this is their actual claim.
Btw, if you want to understand their position in detail, read this:
Everybody in this thread should read this book, and not post any more until they do.
An overview of the discipline of celibacy from the time of Christ and the Apostles through the Papacy of Pope Francis. Quotes from Sacred Scripture, Church Councils, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Saints, and Popes up through and including the current Holy Father (Pope Francis).
For more please visit http://www.audiosancto.org & remember to say 3 Hail Marys for the priest
Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy
Priestly celibacy in Patristics and in the history of the Church
No, no, no. Don't ask real questions to ignorant people on the internet. Get a book that actually answers the question:
http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Origins-Priestly-Celibacy-Christian/dp/0898709512
priests can be married (Peter was married), but once they serve God at the altar there must be permanent and lifelong continence even while married.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcOOfRHgYgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRRnlvMSywk
So yes, it would be heresy and a violation of apostolic tradition to allow priests to not be celibate.
...and has not scratched any of the original ones.
Book:
https://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Origins-Priestly-Celibacy-Christian/dp/0898709512
It’s not your fault that you are repeating what is said ad nauseam on this site...but it’s not correct. Here is an excellent book on the topic:
Popular alternatives to Apostolic Origins of Priest...
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts
