Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

Can a Catholic priest have a wife and children? Yes. In the Catholic Church a priest can have a wife and children, but it depends on the rite in which he serves. Unity of the Catholic doctrines is not synonymous with uniformity of discipline. In the Latin rite (the most numerous, commonly called "Roman Catholic"), the discipline of celibacy is the norm for priests, meaning they generally cannot marry after ordination. However, the Catholic Church is not a monolith—it comprises 24 Churches, including 23 Eastern Churches (e.g., Albanian, Belarusian, Chaldean, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Greek Catholic, Byzantine, Armenian, Maronite) where the discipline allows the ordination of married men as priests. Their ordinations are equally valid as those in the Latin rite. The whole controversy stems from the interpretation of two statements by St. Paul: (1 Cor 7:32–35 and 1 Tim 3:2) St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 praises celibacy as a state enabling full dedication to the things of God ("the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord"), but does not mandate it. In 1 Timothy 3:2 (and similarly Titus 1:6), he states that a "presbyter [bishop/overseer] must be the husband of one wife" (Gr. miās gynaikos andra). This does not exclude celibacy but emphasizes marital fidelity if marriage exists. David H. Stern, a Messianic Jew and author of Jewish New Testament Commentary (1992, Jewish New Testament Publications), proposes three possible interpretations of these passages, emphasizing the historical context (where polygamy was rare but possible in some Jewish circles). Stern argues that Paul does not mandate marriage but excludes bigamy or infidelity, which aligns with his praise of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7. Stern lists: a: A presbyter may have at most one wife (but need not—celibacy is allowed). b: A presbyter must be married (to one wife)—less likely, since Paul himself was celibate. c: A presbyter must have at least one wife (even more are permitted)—least likely in the context of monogamy and praise of celibacy. Since St. Paul lived in celibacy and praised this state, most theologians (including Catholic ones) accept interpretation 1: celibacy was "well-regarded but not mandatory" in the early Church. So what changed? In the common interpretation, it is said that the Church did not want to allow the inheritance of clerical property but it is an oversimplification—the Church from the 4th century distinguished private property from Church property (e.g., Council of Elvira, 305). It was not uncommon for local churches to be managed by emperors, kings, or princes. Everyone knows the famous investiture controversy (11th century). The centralization of the Church was not far advanced at that time to manage the cadres (bishops, presbyters) in Europe, which led to many pathologies like nepotism, where sons of bishops inherited priestly offices, which loosened moral standards. To ensure that bishops would  "care for the things of God" (1 Cor 7) clerics were ordered to live in celibacy. Celibacy became mandatory in the Latin Church after the Second Lateran Council (1139) and the Council of Trent (1563), reaching its peak under Innocent III (1198–1216), when the Church fought secular rulers (emperors, princes) over appointments. Episcopal dynasties (e.g., in Italy) loosened moral standards of the Church, which reformers like Gregory VII (1073–1085) combated with celibacy. At this point it needs to be understood that celibacy is not a dogma but a discipline and can be relaxed or applied to specific individuals. Discipline allows for exceptions (e.g., married Anglican converts in the Latin rite). The Church emphasizes the words of Scripture, that celibacy is a "gift for the Kingdom" (Mt 19:12) but not mandatory for all ("He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"). 🔗continued 🔗sources #celibacy

Against the criticism of burning incense as inherently pagan practice Incense played a significant role in the religious life of ancient Israel, rooted in the Tabernacle and later Temple worship as outlined in the Torah. Its use dates back to the period of the Exodus (circa 13th–15th century BCE, though exact dating is debated among scholars) and continued through the First and Second Temple periods (until 70 CE). Leviticus 16:12–13 “And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from the altar before the Lord, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and he shall bring it inside the veil and put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is over the testimony, so that he does not die.” *This describes the High Priest’s ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), where incense was burned in the Holy of Holies to create a protective cloud, symbolizing atonement and the presence of God. Exodus 30:1–10 “You shall make an altar on which to burn incense; you shall make it of acacia wood. A cubit shall be its length, and a cubit its breadth. It shall be square, and two cubits shall be its height. Its horns shall be of one piece with it. You shall overlay it with pure gold, its top and around its sides and its horns. And you shall make a molding of gold around it. And you shall make two golden rings for it. Under its molding on two opposite sides of it you shall make them, and they shall be holders for poles with which to carry it. You shall make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. And you shall put it in front of the veil that is above the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is above the testimony, where I will meet with you. And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it. Every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, and when Aaron sets up the lamps at twilight, he shall burn it, a regular incense offering before the Lord throughout your generations. You shall not offer unauthorized incense on it, or a burnt offering, or a grain offering, and you shall not pour a drink offering on it. Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year. With the blood of the sin offering of atonement he shall make atonement for it once in the year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.” *God provides detailed instructions for constructing the altar of incense in the Tabernacle, emphasizing its holy purpose and the regular burning of incense as part of worship. *Exodus 30:34–37 “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, sweet spices with pure frankincense (of each shall there be an equal part), and make an incense blended as by the perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and holy. You shall beat some of it very small, and put part of it before the testimony in the tent of meeting where I shall meet with you. It shall be most holy for you. And the incense that you shall make according to its composition, you shall not make for yourselves. It shall be for you holy to the Lord. Whoever makes any like it to use as perfume shall be cut off from his people.’" *This specifies the recipe for incense, reserved exclusively for Tabernacle worship, underscoring its sanction and the prohibition against secular use. Psalm 141:2 “Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice!” *A poetic expression linking prayer with the rising incense, suggesting a spiritual symbolism Revelation 8:3–4 “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.” *The vision connects Old Testament incense practices to the prayers of the faithful. 🔗continued 🔗more: Biblical Evidence for Candles, Incense, and Related Sacramental Symbolism for Prayer and Sacrifice #sacramentals

The contrast between Christian and Islamic civilisations "From the end of antiquity until well into the early modern era, Islam proved to be the real counterpart to Europe. The contrast between Europe and Asia, between Erebos [evening] and Oriens [sunrise],[3] which can be found as early as the sixth century before Christ in the writings of Hecataeus of Miletus and which was not meant as a merely geographic distinction, continues in modified form in this confrontation. From its very origins, Islam is in certain respects a return to a monotheism that does not accept the Christian turn to a God who has become man, and it likewise shuts itself off from Greek rationality and the resulting culture, which by way of the idea of God’s Incarnation had become a component of Christian monotheism. Of course, one may object that again and again over the course of history there has been rapprochement between Islam and the intellectual world of Greece, but it has never lasted. Above all, this means that the separation of faith and law, of religion and tribal authority, was not completed in Islam and cannot be accomplished without disturbing Islam at the very core. Put differently: the faith is presented in the form of a more or less archaic system of civil and penal laws and corresponding practices in everyday life. Islam is defined, not in terms of nationality but, rather, by a legal system that fixes its ethnic and cultural features and at the same time sets limits to rationality where the Christian synthesis sees that reason has its place.[4] Since the eighteenth century, Islam obviously had lost much of its political and moral importance, and from the nineteenth century on it increasingly came under the rule of European legal systems that considered themselves universally applicable because, as enlightened law, they had detached themselves from their Christian foundations and now presented themselves as pure, rational law. But, for that very reason, these legal systems are necessarily perceived as godless and contrary to the faith wherever Islam is or becomes alive as a faith. Considering the unity of religion and of ethnicity, they appear to be an attack that is both ethnic and religious, to be an alienation not only from what is one’s own but from what is real. The combination of these two affronts causes the vehemence of the reaction we can observe today. There are certainly many reasons for the intensification of this trend, but they cannot be discussed here in detail. Most importantly, on the one hand, the Arab world has grown stronger politically and economically, and, on the other hand, European rational law is in a crisis, now that it has completely relinquished its religious foundations and de facto runs the risk of turning into a rule of anarchy. The moment Europe calls its own spiritual foundations into question or abolishes them, separates itself from its history and declares it a cesspool, the response of a non-European culture can only be a radical reaction and a return to the time before the encounter with Christian values. Furthermore, I consider this reaction of the Islamic world to be only the most visible and politically most effective segment of a movement that, in many varied forms, is powerfully at work within the European consciousness itself. The work of Lévi-Strauss—to mention only one example—expresses for its part the longing in the European mind to put its Christian domestication behind it, precisely as domestication—as slavery, in contrast with which the monde sauvage can be seen as the better world.[5] Source: a lecture delivered in Brussels by Joseph Ratzinger, Europe: A Heritage with Obligations for Christians, 1979; also printed in "A New Vision of Europe?" and "Church, Ecumenism, and Politics (Ignatius Press) 🔗references 🔗read online #islam #civilisation

A note on Mary's election according to St. Gregory Palamas "God’s grace, however, is unalterable and His purpose cannot prove false, so some of man’s offspring were chosen, that, from among many, a suitable receptacle for this divine adoption and grace might be found, who would serve God’s will perfectly, and would be revealed as a vessel worthy to unite divine and human nature in one person, not just exalting our nature, but restoring the human race. The holy Maid and Virgin Mother of God was this vessel, so she was proclaimed by the Archangel Gabriel as full of grace (Lk. 1:28), being the chosen one among the chosen, blameless, undefiled and worthy to contain the person of the God-Man and to collaborate with Him. Therefore God pre-ordained her before all ages, chose her from among all that had ever lived, and deemed her worthy of more grace than anyone else, making her the holiest of saints, even before her mysterious childbearing. For that reason, He graciously willed that she should make her home in the Holy of Holies, and accepted her as His companion to share His dwelling from her childhood. He did not simply choose her from the masses, but from the elect of all time, who were admired and renowned for their piety and wisdom, and for their character, words and deeds, which pleased God and brought benefit to all. source: Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009),Homily on the Old Testament Saints #mary

Distinction of Powers in the Growing Church "The bishop alone could consecrate a church (Council of Orange (441), canon 10.) mingle the charism, reconcile penitents and consecrate virgins (Councils of Carthage, (390), canon 3; (397), canon 36; Codex Ecclesiae Africanae, canon 6; Council of Toledo (400), canon 20.). But in the absence of the bishop, priests were permitted to reconcile penitents in articulo mortis, if he had previously authorised them to do so. The Roman Council held about the year 374 made a similar provision.(In Epistola ad Gallos episcopos, canon 7.) It relates that during the paschal season priests and deacons took part in the reconciliation of penitents in the presence of the bishop. But it is made quite clear that they were acting in the name of the bishop. At other times of the year, by special license, the priest could reconcile penitents in danger of death. The deacon did not possess the same authority. But the text does say that if he had done so but once out of necessity, he would be excused. Preaching was as a rule also reserved to the bishop.(Harnack and Hatch disagree with this point, at least concerning the apostolic age, while Tixeront concurs with Gaudemet. Tixeront, p. 84-87.) Yet from the fourth century it was also undertaken by priests at Alexandria." J. Gaudemet, “Holy Orders in Early Conciliar Legislation,” printed in Holy Orders, p. 191-192 (1955) *This quotation illustrates that the bishop possessed the fullness of the Christian ministry from the early centuries of Christianity and that the bishops gradually delegated their powers, or rather a share in their powers, to presbyters. These powers, though proper to the episcopacy, are granted to the presbyterate by extension. In fact, every presbyter acts as an extension of the bishop.  #priesthood

The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism - A Study of Theological Prolegomena - Volume II (1972) Robert Preus

A note on the Visitation Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Gospel according to Luke I–IX" “Some commentators have noted the similarity of this question to either 2 Sam 6:9 ("How can the ark of the Lord come to me?") or 2 Sam 24:21 ("Why has my lord, the king, come to his servant?"). For E. Burrows (Gospel of the Infancy, 47) and R. Laurentin (Structure, 79-81 ), Elizabeth's question compares Mary with the ark of the covenant. This link is supposed to be confirmed in 1:56, where Mary is said to remain three months with Elizabeth, just as the ark stayed "three months" with Obededom. But this is subtle. If, indeed, the story may be compared with 2 Sam 24:21, then what connection does it have with the ark? Again, the question has to be asked: Who is seeing the connections here? Luke, or Burrows, and others? See further P. Benoit, RB 65 (1958) 429; Brown, Birth, 327-328.” *The Greek parallel is intriguing: Πῶς εἰσελεύσεται πρός με ἡ κιβωτὸς κυρίου; (2 Kingdoms 6:9) ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς ἐμέ; (Luke 1:43, NA28) *The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:2) •Mary traveled to the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39) •The Ark stayed 3 months (2 Sam 6:11) •Mary stayed 3 months (Luke 1:56) •David leapt before the Ark (2 Sam 6:14,16) •John the Baptist leapt before Mary (Luke 1:41) #mary