Here is an excerpt of the response of Byzantine Ramblings on the Zenit article on priestly celibacy.
...It is obvious that Father Professor Touze is a terminal victim of scholasticitis. This disease, widespread for centuries in the West and recently thought to be in decline, begins with a defective understanding of "original sin" as an ontological state of being passed on through procreation. Rather than explicitly respecting the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church that the effect of original sin is death and that it is endemic to humanity, as opposed to a guilt passed on via the sexual act, scholasticitis views the very act of sexual intercourse - even between spouses - somewhat sinful and thus to be avoided. Hence the movement in the West towards a celibate clergy historically had as much to do ensuring the 'purity' of the celebrant at the Liturgy as the commonly referenced prevention of property disputes raised by the progeny of the presbyterate.
The in persona christi view of the priest at Mass confuses the role of the priest as the president of the community (an essential part in Greek of the etymology of the term), with a somewhat magical identification of the priest with our Lord Himself ontologically offering Himself for the life of the world. This is clearly seen in the scholastic obsession with the recitation of the "Words of Institution" as the identifiable moment of transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This accounts for the absence of the Epiklesis in the Roman Canon. (Check the nicely informative article at Wikipedia on Epilesis.)
On this count alone, Rome has had significant difficulties in recent years when accepting into communion various ancient Churches of the East whose Liturgy has never featured the Words of Institution at all. This fact has led to elaborate and imaginative explanations as to how these ancient rites claiming Apostolic origin, could still be found valid in the scholasticized context.
The Byzantine Tradition has always held the original position on both the Eucharist and the question of clerical celibacy. Regarding the Eucharist, it is the Epiklesis - the calling down of the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ - that effects the change in substance. In this view, the priest or bishop acts as president or overseer of the gathered Church, with the spiritual authority and power to effectively call on the Holy Spirit for this change being guaranteed by the Apostolic Sucession of the bishop and the adherence to the Gospel Tradition as handed down from the Apostles.
As the result of Original Sin (or more precisely Ancestral Sin) is the corruption and death now rampant in creation, Holy Baptism and Chrismation make each Christian capable of achieving repentant growth in the Likeness of God, and Ordination grants the permission through orthodox teaching and Tradition in the Apostolic Succession for the cleric to lead the people in the Eucharistic celebration. That is the extent of the liturgia - the public work, the work of the people - in the participation of clergy and laity in the Divine Liturgy. It is the Holy Spirit who brings Christ to us through our thanksgiving and anamnesis (remembering) His Self-offering for us to God the Father. Therefore, purity from sexual intercourse is not such a central necessity as the Scholastictic Roman doctrine would have us believe.
True, married clergy abstain from sexual relations with their wives on the eve of the weekly celebration of the Divine Mysteries. However, this is part of the fasting and preparation for the reception of the supreme and highest Gift of God to humanity in the Body and Blood of Christ, not because sexual intercourse compromises the purity of the celebrant.
In the 2005 Extraordinary Synod on the Eucharist, held at the Vatican, the conflict between the Byzantine historic Tradition and understanding of the Eucharist and priestly celibacy saw a brief and reportedly heated exchange between Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham and Italian Cardinal Angelo Schola of Venice. As noted by Amy Welborn, amongst many at the time, reported:
The in persona christi view of the priest at Mass confuses the role of the priest as the president of the community (an essential part in Greek of the etymology of the term), with a somewhat magical identification of the priest with our Lord Himself ontologically offering Himself for the life of the world. This is clearly seen in the scholastic obsession with the recitation of the "Words of Institution" as the identifiable moment of transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This accounts for the absence of the Epiklesis in the Roman Canon. (Check the nicely informative article at Wikipedia on Epilesis.)
On this count alone, Rome has had significant difficulties in recent years when accepting into communion various ancient Churches of the East whose Liturgy has never featured the Words of Institution at all. This fact has led to elaborate and imaginative explanations as to how these ancient rites claiming Apostolic origin, could still be found valid in the scholasticized context.
The Byzantine Tradition has always held the original position on both the Eucharist and the question of clerical celibacy. Regarding the Eucharist, it is the Epiklesis - the calling down of the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ - that effects the change in substance. In this view, the priest or bishop acts as president or overseer of the gathered Church, with the spiritual authority and power to effectively call on the Holy Spirit for this change being guaranteed by the Apostolic Sucession of the bishop and the adherence to the Gospel Tradition as handed down from the Apostles.
As the result of Original Sin (or more precisely Ancestral Sin) is the corruption and death now rampant in creation, Holy Baptism and Chrismation make each Christian capable of achieving repentant growth in the Likeness of God, and Ordination grants the permission through orthodox teaching and Tradition in the Apostolic Succession for the cleric to lead the people in the Eucharistic celebration. That is the extent of the liturgia - the public work, the work of the people - in the participation of clergy and laity in the Divine Liturgy. It is the Holy Spirit who brings Christ to us through our thanksgiving and anamnesis (remembering) His Self-offering for us to God the Father. Therefore, purity from sexual intercourse is not such a central necessity as the Scholastictic Roman doctrine would have us believe.
True, married clergy abstain from sexual relations with their wives on the eve of the weekly celebration of the Divine Mysteries. However, this is part of the fasting and preparation for the reception of the supreme and highest Gift of God to humanity in the Body and Blood of Christ, not because sexual intercourse compromises the purity of the celebrant.
In the 2005 Extraordinary Synod on the Eucharist, held at the Vatican, the conflict between the Byzantine historic Tradition and understanding of the Eucharist and priestly celibacy saw a brief and reportedly heated exchange between Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham and Italian Cardinal Angelo Schola of Venice. As noted by Amy Welborn, amongst many at the time, reported:
According to priests who briefed reporters on the synod proceedings in several languages on Tuesday, the debate produced a coarse exchange late Monday between Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice, the general relator of the synod, and Melkite Patriarch Gregoire III Laham.
“Celibacy has no theological foundation” in the priesthood, Laham said, responding to an opening speech by Scola that cited “profound theological motives” for not allowing married men to enter the priesthood.
“In the Eastern Church married priests are admitted,” Laham said, adding that “marriage is a symbol of union between Christ and the church.”
Responding to Laham, Scola asserted that “in the Latin church theological reasons exist” for maintaining the policy on celibacy. He did not elaborate on those reasons. He then added, “The synod is a place to explore the Mystery, not to give directions on its use.”
In reality, the Cardinal knew he didn't have a theological foundation to stand on. The history of the issue of clerical celibacy can be easily traced by anyone who wants to take the time to review the history of the canons in, starting with the complete collection in the Rudder and also reviewing the various canons in the West up through the time it was universally invoked.
Foolish comments like those of Father Professor Touze are an embarrassment and irresponsible. Such views will not only reduce any forward movement towards reconciliation with the Orthodox, but will reinforce the sense of estrangement felt by some Eastern Catholics who repeatedly have to argue for their own 'rights' in the Church.
Let us pray that Fr Touze and those like him retire to happy and peaceful pursuits, like moth collecting.
Foolish comments like those of Father Professor Touze are an embarrassment and irresponsible. Such views will not only reduce any forward movement towards reconciliation with the Orthodox, but will reinforce the sense of estrangement felt by some Eastern Catholics who repeatedly have to argue for their own 'rights' in the Church.
Let us pray that Fr Touze and those like him retire to happy and peaceful pursuits, like moth collecting.
Posts
The Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted. Was there specific epiclesis for the transubstantiation to occur at the Last Supper as recorded by the Gospels or as related by St. Paul in his epistles which only record the Institution Narrative?
ReplyDeleteJust a question so I can understand more.
A second question. Why are Eastern bishops chosen from the rank of monastic celibates and can this non-dogmatic tradition be laid aside for married bishops?
Other Roman Catholics have now responded to this as well. I think it's clear that Fr. Touze goes off the tracks.
ReplyDeletehttp://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/03/11/are-married-priests-an-exception/