R. J. Grigaitis

When I first heard about the movie No Greater Love, I thought, “Great, another good movie teaching Christian values.”

When I saw the trailer, I thought, “Oh No! They know nothing about Christian marriage and make Christians look like a bunch of nuts.”

I was planning on watching No Greater Love as soon as it came out so I could write a review to warn everyone to stay away from this movie, but I couldn’t find the time. Fortunately, Sr. Helena Burns, who is an actual movie critic, has written a really good review of the movie, which, unfortunately, confirms my concerns raised by the trailer. I’m not going to waist my money on this movie now that Sr. Helena has taken the time to warn us of its major problems.

If you’re considering watching No Greater Love, read Sr. Helena’s review first:
http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2010/02/movies-no-greater-love-dvd.html

Many do not understand how Catholics were forbidden from eating meat on Fridays, and then in 1966 they were suddenly allowed to. To understand this, one must realise that the no meat on Fridays rule, like the celibate clergy rule, was never a doctrine but only a practice. As well, this practice was not done away with, but simply modified.

In 1966, Pope Paul IV determined that the rules for fasting and abstinence should be set by the various bishop conferences according to local circumstances. Many, but not all, conferences decided that they would allow the faithful to eat meat on Fridays if the faithful chose some other form of penance; although, abstaining from meat was still preferable.

The actual act of eating meat on Fridays was never itself a mortal sin. However, it was, and still is, a mortal sin for Catholics to wilfully disobey Church rules. At one time, it was against Church rules to eat meat on Fridays, so wilfully doing so would be a mortal sin. Now, some bishops allow the faithful to substitute another form of penance for eating meat on Fridays, so they can in good conscience eat meat on Fridays if they do some other form of penance.

Doctrines never change. Practices can.

This is just like the speed limit for the highway that connects my hometown with the big city north of us. For years it was 110km/h at day and 100km/h at night. Around thirteen or fourteen years ago, it was changed to 110km/h both day and night. Does this mean that people driving 110km/h at night twenty years ago were not speeding? Of course not. One has to follow the laws when they are in force. (I found this out the hard way. I got my first speeding ticket a few months ago in a zone that changed a few years ago from 60km/h to 50km/h. I really watch the signs now.)

Just as the rules changed so some Catholics could eat meat on Fridays, this change can be reversed. This is what Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Steubenville did. As of April 17, 2009, Roman Catholics in the Diocese of Steubenville must abstain from meat on Fridays. You can read his letter to the faithful of his diocese concerning this here:
http://home.catholicweb.com/diosteub/index.cfm/NewsItem?id=260466

All Protestant Fundamentalists will admit that both Christ and St. Paul encourage celibacy for the Kingdom for those that can accept it (cf. Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:32-38). The reason for celibacy for the Kingdom is so that one can devote himself wholly  to God. Everyone has the right to choose a life of celibacy. Well, almost everyone.

Some of the Rites of the Catholic Church, most notably the Roman Rite, have wisely chosen to only select men for the presbyterate (priesthood) who have chosen to devote themselves wholly to God through celibacy. All of the Rites of the Catholic Church have chosen to only select celibate presbyters for the episcopate (bishops). Strangely, some Protestant Fundamentalists have chosen to select only men for what they call the presbyterate (elders) who have chosen to marry and cannot devote themselves wholly to God. I say strangely because it doesn’t make sense that the leaders of these churches are not allowed devote themselves wholly to God.

These Fundamentalists are quick to say that it is unfair to force celibacy on Roman Catholic priests; however, it is just as unfair to force marriage on their elders.

As with many heresies, mandatory marriage of elders and deacons comes from a misinterpretation of the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:2 says bishops must be “the husband of one wife.” Titus 1:6 says priests must be “the husband of one wife.” And, 1 Timothy 3:12 says deacons must be “the husband of one wife.” A correct interpretation of these verses is not that marriage is mandatory for men that hold these offices, but that if they are married and their wife dies, they are not allowed to remarry. The key word in these verses is one, as in no more than “one wife.”

The most obvious argument against mandatory marriage is that there was celibate clergy in the New Testament: St. Paul was celibate. The most common counter-argument is to simply say that Paul was not an elder. If we ask how we know this, we are told, “He couldn’t be an elder because he wasn’t married.”

Not only is this counter-argument based  on circular reasoning, it is proven wrong with the original Greek of the New Testament. St. Peter calls himself a presbuteros in 1 Peter 5:1, which is congruent with this counter-argument because St. Peter was married. However, St. Paul calls himself a presbutas in Philemon 9, which is essentially the same word. If one calls Peter an elder, he has to call Paul an elder; therefore one has to admit that there was celibate clergy in the New Testament. (Actually, in these two contexts, the words in question should be translated as senior and not as priest. This is how the Latin Vulgate does it.)

For a number of reasons, I’m a little more than a month behind in most of my projects right now (actually, I’m a whole year behind in one project). This is why I took a three week break in my podcasts over Easter instead of only one. Seven weeks ago, I heard someone say something theologically incorrect, and it’s taken until now before I address it. I didn’t correct this person at the time because in this situation I had to look up specific biblical passages to back up my correction. It was actually the beginning of the Intercessions in Tuesday’s Morning Prayer that prompted me to finally get busy on this one.

This is the erroneous theological statement that I heard:

“Christ did not rise from the dead of his own accord. God raised him from the dead.”

You may say that only the first sentence of this statement is erroneous, but when both sentences are put together, they imply a thoroughly heretical thought. By itself, the second sentence is correct. God did raise Christ from the dead, and since Christ is God, it could be said that Christ raised Himself from the dead. However, when these two sentences are put together, a distinction is made between Christ and God. By saying that God, and not Christ, raised Christ from the dead, it is implied that Christ is not God. This is heresy.

I am quite sure that the particular person that made this statement does believe that Christ is God, and didn’t realise the implication of this statement. I’m sure that the only intention was to emphasise the role of God the Father in Christ’s resurrection. This is why I said that it was “theologically incorrect” and not actually heretical.

Now onto the statement that prompted me to finally get around to writing this. This is how the Intercessions begin in Morning Prayer for the Tuesday of the Third Week of Easter:

“By his own power Christ raised up the temple of his body when it had been destroyed in death.”

I found the same wording, “by His own power,” in a section from a creed composed by a unknown theologian of the fifth century, which was received by the Council of Toledo XI in 675, and possible approved by Pope Innocent III:

[The Redemption] In this form of assumed human nature we believe according to the truth of the Gospels that He was conceived without sin, born without sin, and died without sin, who alone for us became sin [II Cor. 5:21], that is, a sacrifice for out sin. And yet He endured His passion without detriment to His divinity, for out sins, and condemned to death and to the cross, He accepted the true death of the body; also on the third day, restored by His own power, He arose from the grave.

The most convincing proof that Jesus rose from the dead by His own accord is His own words in John 2:19-22:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Note that He did not say, “God will raise it up,” but, “I will raise it up.”

John 10:17-18 also says the same thing:

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

Here Christ states that he has the power to lay down His life and raise it up again by His own accord. However, He also says that He received this charge from His Father.

Christ did not act alone in the Resurrection, but in the unity of the Trinity. Here are a couple of passages that cite the action of the Father and Holy Spirit in the Resurrection.

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

… and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord… (Romans 1:4)

Pauline theology tends to emphasise that the Father raised Christ from the dead, whereas Johannine theology tends to emphasise Christ raising Himself from the dead. Both are correct (obviously, they’re in the Bible). Negating either one creates not only unsound theology, it open the door to heresy.

Addendum May 12, 2009

As Easter progresses, the Liturgy of the Hours gives a fuller expression of the Trinitarian source of the Resurrection. The Intercessions in Morning Prayer for the Friday of the Fourth Week of Easter begin with this:

God the Father raised up Christ through the Spirit, and will also raise up our mortal bodies.

The Intercessions in Evening Prayer for the Fifth Week of Easter begin with this:

The Holy Spirit raised the body of Christ to life and made it the source of life.

This topic has come up yet again in an e-mail discussion, so I decided to address it on my blog so that the next time it comes up, I can direct people  to this page.

There is married clergy in the Catholic Church. There always has been. Both married and celibate men can be ordained to the diaconate; however, once ordained, a man cannot marry. If he freely choses to devote himself wholly to God through celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:32-37) before ordination, he must remain celibate. If he was married before ordination and his wife dies after he is ordained, he cannot remarry but must remain celibate. It became the norm in the Latin Rite to only ordain celibate deacons to the presbyterate (priests). It became the norm in all of the rites of the Catholic Church to only ordain celibate presbyters to the episcopate (bishops).

No one is forbidden to marry in the Catholic Church; however, men must discern if God is calling them to celibacy or marriage before being ordained. After ordination, a man cannot marry. If a man is called by God to marriage, God will not call him to be a priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church as long as his wife is living. As well, God will not call a married priest to be a bishop as long as his wife is living. God will not call a married deacon to be a Latin Rite priest or a married priest to be a bishop because God binds in heaven what the Church binds on earth (cf. Matthew 16:18, 18:18). Since the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to make these rules, the same Spirit will not confound them by calling someone to an office he can’t legally be placed in.

The rule that married deacons can’t become a priests in the Latin Rite, and the rule that a married priests can’t become bishops are not doctrines and can change; although, it is very unlikely that this will ever happen. These rules were not always in place, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they are in place now, and must be accepted.

I should point out that I said it was the “norm.” Exceptions can be made. While the norm will always be followed for celibate clergy already in the Church, it is possible for married clergy from another church, such as the Anglican Church and some Protestant churches, to enter the Church and be ordained to the diaconate and then possibly to the presbyterate in the Latin Rite. I said, “possibly;” there are no guarantees, just as with any man discerning a call to ordination.

There is also another exception: a celibate priest can petition the Church to release him from his vow of celibacy, allowing him to marry. A release from this vow; however, comes with a serious consequence: he would not be allowed to normally exercise his priesthood. This is called laicizing a priest because the priest normally can no longer perform the functions proper to a priest, essentially making him a layman. He does, nonetheless, remain a priest because, like baptism, ordination cannot be erased. In case of a serious emergency, he is obligated to perform his priestly duty. As example of this would be hearing the confession of a dying man when it is impossible to get another priest there in time.

Aside from this exception with its serious consequence, ordained men are not allowed to marry. Married men are allowed to be ordained; although, it has become the norm in the Latin Rite to only ordain celibate deacons to the presbyterate and the norm throughout the Church to only ordain celibate presbyters to the episcopate.

In my last post about Fr. McBrien’s new book, I gave a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo’s Sermon 295, On the Feast of the Martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Here is a different translation of that quote by William A. Jurgens:

Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, who He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.” For it was not one man, but the unity of the Church, which received those keys. In that way, therefore, Peter’s own excellence is foretold, because he acted the part of the unity and totality of the Church herself, when to him it was said, “I hand over to you,” what was in fact handed over to all.

This quote from St. Augustine seems to contradict another important quote on the keys of the kingdom of Heaven from Tertullian’s treatise on Modesty, again from Jurgens :

I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed.

Although this quote is from Tertullian’s  Montanist period, the above quote is accepted as orthodox because it has no content  relating to the Montanist Heresy.

St. Augustine and Tertullian seem to be saying different things. How is it then that the quote from St. Augustine and the quote from Tertullian can both be considered orthodox? They can both be considered orthodox because they are saying the same thing from opposite perspectives.

Tertullian makes it very clear that it was to Peter personally and not the Church to whom Christ gave the keys. Not only that, he also says that the power of binding and loosing has been given solely to Peter, even though Scripture clearly states that Christ is speaking to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18.

Doesn’t Tertullian ignore the other Apostles in 18:18? No. The only way to understand him is by realising that the other Apostles only have the power of binding and loosing when they are in union with Peter. That is, Christ gives the power of binding and loosing to the Church, which, as  St. Augustine says, “Peter alone merited to represent.” As St. Ambrose of Milan said in his Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms, “Where Peter is, there is the Church.”

With this understanding we can see how St. Augustine can say that the keys were given to all without denying that the keys were given solely to Peter. Peter is all. That is, Peter is “the unity and totality of the Church herself.”