A pipe dream? It will be if that is your conclusion.

A goal? It could be if we have a vision and are prepared to take steps to contribute to the cause in some way.

That’s my two pence worth!

For instance, I think that the ICEL’s The Liturgy of the Hours is an elegant, finely-tuned work that I find easier and more satisfying to pray than the TEC’s Divine Office. However, I do think the Solemn High Mass in the vernacular (TEC’s Rite I) with the rootedness in the Sarum use is quite lovely, better I think than the Tridentine mass in Latin.

It would be easy enough to do, and fair play. Plus, people could find comfortable and satisfying spiritual and religious homes. I think a way should be opened for a great enantiodromic migration.

The only caveat is that it may become like the partition of India and Pakistan. What then will be our Kashmir?

I don’t have my scholarly works like Cochini at hand, because I’m still living out of boxes, wherein lies my whole library (I have a lot of books). Cardinal Strickler has a pithy volume. Fr. Stanley Jaki (my favorite priest, RIP this past April) wrote one on the “Theology of Priestly Celibacy.”

But just a brief Google shows that most of the English translations (Protestant) substitute “sister” for “wife”. The Douay-Rheims says the same. This suggests to us that the common interpretation in Church history was “sister”, not “wife”. The NAB, forced on us in the current liturgy, is one of the worst translations ever (just a money maker for the USCCB – don’t get me started ). This goes along with the idea of “perfect continence”, which today we call “living as brother and sister”, which is still required today in some cases of irregular marriages.

If married, it’s no surpise that their wives accompanied them. Many women acccompanied Our Lord. But none suggest (aside from Da Vinci Code Dan Brown) suggest anything untoward. Generally it’s believed St. John was the only non-married apostle. I can understand how the idea of their wives accompanying them and not having relations is problematic given a modern interpretation.

You have to read the entirety of Scripture along with the early Tradition to properly understand what St. Paul means – and you’re right, he didn’t start preaching the days after the scales fell from his eyes, he spent YEARS under the guidance of the apostles. His works are considered inspired not just because of the amount of his writings, but because they were written in the context of an existing Church of which he was a STUDENT (this kind of covers the belief by non-Christians who just take the Bible and think St. Paul invented Christianity – no, he was just passing on its wisdom in an eloquent, controversial and prolific way).

And Bosco, you’re right about the development of Daily Mass. A few hundred years earlier in the West than the East, and by the time it caugt on in the East, they had already started undermining it, except among the celibate monks.

Well, I’ve got a weekend of work to do.

Best, Fr. Paul, pastor, St. Joseph’s, Dalton, GA

May it not be so, and may they find peace and blessings.

For high-church progressives, I just hope I’ll be able to find a venue where I can whiff some incense, glimpse a subdeacon, say a corporate Angelus, AND take communion.

This is the chapter where St. Paul is proving he had a right to be called an “apostle”. St. Paul called it a RIGHT for him to have a Christian wife too, yet he was not married at the time.

However, if he WANTED to be married, he wrote he had the RIGHT to be married, like the other apostles. By the time he wrote to the Corinthians, he was a LONG-TIME apostle. He was not new.

He wrote he could take a wife along on missionary journies, like the other apostles & “Cephas” = who is St. Peter.

I used the USCCB – United States Conference of Catholic Bishops New American Bible- link, to get the above quote, so there would be no issues with different translations. So this quote is 100% Roman Catholic approved.

Does it mean the same to everyone else, as it does to me?

Namely, that if St. Paul, the apostle, wanted to marry a believing woman (Christian) and take her along with him on his journies, he could? Does anyone else interpret that verse differently?

I interpret this to read that Paul, 100% an apostle, and not married during the time of his ministry & at the time he wrote this letter, claimed he had the RIGHT to marry, according to his own letter to the Corinthians.

Your thoughts about this specific verse? Thank you.
1 CORINTHIANS 9:5

It is the Deposit of Faith that the Roman Church correctly uses to not allow the ordination of women as priests. But in Davie’s book, he clearly outlines how mandatory celibacy came to be, and puts it in relation to early Church Tradition, and most importantly, the Deposit of Faith.

Before reading Davie’s book, I never even heard of the Deposit of Faith before, and I have 12 years of Catholic education, and have never wandered from my Roman Catholic roots, but am still a practicing Catholic today. I encourage everyone to read about the Deposit of Faith.

Blessings

yes, you’ve got the facts exactly.
Ive wondered why in re-establishing the permanent dieconate Post VatII, the Church did not require this continence! As it is now the Orthodox from that late 7th cnt. synod REQUIRE SEXUAL FASTING of the married clergy both before and after the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy AND during Advent Lent, vigils of Great Feasts, and other times of the year! But post Vat II HAS NO restrictions at all. Traditionally it had to do with the saccredness of litugical service. But with laity (mostly women I’ve observed now giving out Communion all sprirtual discipline is gone EVEN FOR THE MARRIED DEACONS,\; NEVER REQUIRED. one of the imprudences of Paul VI!

The Catholic Encyclopedias entry on St Paul of the Cross explains how he prayed for over 50 years for the conversion and reconciliation Paul’s of England.

Perhaps the timing of this offer by the Pope on St Paul of the Cross’ feast day was intentional, given Paul’s fervent desire for the reconciliation with the Church of England.

I wrote a brief article concerning St Paul of the Cross and his desire for the reunion of the Anglicans. For those interested it can be found here:
http://www.saintpaulofthecross.com/2009/10/rome-vatican-pope-reaches-out-to.html

Glenn Dallaire

We have two Anglo-convert priests serving in our diocese, though we have no Anglo-use parishes. As I understand it, there is no 24-hour rule imposed on them. However, they cannot remarry and they cannot marry if ordained while unmaried. E.g. basically the same rules as for permanent deacons. In our diocese, they cannot become pastors (though they can serve as administrators, which is de facto a pastor).

In one of my prior pastorates, I had two former deacons. One unmarried when ordained, and he was required to live a celibate life and would not have been permitted to marry. He left because of personal problems. The other deacon’s wife died and he chose to remarry and was automatically excommunicated by that act. He went on to hospice ministry and seemed very happy with that.

One other thing to consider: Pope John Paul II used to refer to the East and West as both “lungs” of the Church, and that therefore the development of different traditions regarding celibacy should be regarded as legitimate movements of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, he called celibacy the “gem” of the Western Church and should therefore be maintained.

Also, there are some who say celibacy is a discipline that can change, not a dogma that cannot be. There are those who disagree with that, looking to the theology hinted at in this thread, about Christ the Groom, the Church the Bride, the priest in persona cristi, etc. But too much to get into here.

Very interesting discussion and very positive.

R. Wenner: St. Mary’s in Arlington? I used to attend there before they converted. Then I received Confirmation and Eucharist as a Catholic at St. Patrick’s in FW. (I was baptized Catholic, raised Episcopalian.)

Fr. Paul, pastor, St. Joseph’s, Dalton, GA