Library
|
|
|
Notes on the book The Apostolic
Origins of Priestly Celibacy
Consider the historical data offered by Christian Cochini, S.J., in his book The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy which was published by Ignatius in 1990. This book is a complete historical study on the question of when priestly celibacy was required and what tradition was passed down by the Apostles. This book is also a complete Bible study on the following verse from Sacred Scripture:
1 Timothy 3:2 "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher…"
The arguments presented by Cochini overwhelming. Please read Cochini’s book, as it is an in-depth study of this specific verse. A 469 page Bible study on this verse to be exact. We have to be careful not assume that a Bible passage’s meaning is always self evident. This passage cannot be proving that bishops were required to have conjugal relations with wives. Such a reading makes St. Paul an invalid Bishop Paul points to celibacy for early church leaders. “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7: 32-35) The interpretation that 1 Timothy required bishops to be married is also irreconcilable with Christ’s appeal in Matthew 19 that early church leaders be celibate. Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” RSV In his book Christian Cochini, S.J. points out the similarity it the phrases "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband…" in the verses below.
Timothy 3:2 "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher…" RSV 1 Timothy 5:9 "Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband…" RSV Cochini makes a strong case that the phrase "husband of one wife" was like an idiom. [Although he does not use that word] He reasons that the "wife of one husband…" had taken a vow of celibacy and it is obvious that she is no longer married, being a widow. He reasons that the parallel Greek phrase of "husband of one wife" meant the same thing, a widower who had taken a vow of celibacy. I can't do justice to his book in this short article so I recommend to all interested that they read it, especially pages 436-439. In the book he quotes Fathers who say the celibacy of the priesthood came from the Apostles. He says, "On the other hand, the opposite movement poses more problems, and it is more difficult to see how Fathers concerned with Tradition and respecting the will of the apostles could have been obstinate enough to impose a discipline of continence if it had been flatly denied by Scripture." He makes the point that although Peter had a mother-in-law, ( and Philip had three daughters,) there is no mention of their wives and presumably they are widowers.
Some will object by quoting the following: 1 Corinthians 9:5 Of course, we have to consider that this passage is from the same St. Paul who just previously stated how he was living a celibate life. 1 Corinthians
7:7-8 Christian Cochini, S.J., goes on to explain in more detail the following:
Church History > The "Athanasius of the West"--St. Hilary of Poiters was married, and he was elected by the people of his region to the episcopate anyway.
Yes some married, that is non-celibate, individuals were ordained. But upon their ordination they were no longer allowed conjugal relations with their wives. I believe that this celibate requirement was meant to be understood as just a discipline of the early church from the time of the Apostles. [The Church can change disciplines to fit the needs of the times.] Never in the early Church do you see an ordained priest being praised for having children after ordination. On the contrary, that was considered as wrong since they were expected to be celibate. Different passages from Church history are cited to support the two contradicting positions about whether celibacy was required by the Apostles in a disciplinarian tradition handed down by them. Fr. Cochini seems to exam all of them. He points out the advantage of first considering those passages that are explicit and using them to help understand those passages from Church history that are vague. The explicit passages do not come until the fourth century where they clearly state celibacy was required by the Apostles and this disciplinarian tradition was passed down to their present day. The rash interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2 that it required bishops to be married is irreconcilable with the teachings of Christ and Paul. And also, the interpretation that the vague passages from church history that they support the approval of married clergy continuing to engage in sexual relations makes unintelligible those other passages from church history that explicitly state celibacy was required by the Apostles.
The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini, S.J., pages 4-5:
“The law that was promulgated during the modest synod of 390 would remain valid and be officially inserted in the great legislative record of the African Church, the Codex canonum Ecclesiae africanae, compiled and promulgated in 419 (in the time of St. Augustine). … Here then is the document that was to play such a part in the history of ecclesiastical celibacy:
Epigonius, Bishop of the Royal Region of Bulla, says: ‘The rule of continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council. Let it [now] be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks that, by virtue of their consecration, are under the same obligation of chastity, i.e., the bishop, the priest, and the deacon, and let them be instructed to keep their purity. Bishop Genethlius says: As was previously said, it is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e., those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep. The bishops declared unanimously: It pleases us all that bishop, priest, and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from [conjugal intercourse] with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.”
End Quote
Three other documents issued by the Church hierarchy at the end of the 4th century that claimed apostolic origin for clerical celibacy and the perpetual continence required of the ministers of the altar are also quoted and discussed, two decrees by Pope Siricius in 385 and 386 AD, and a decree by the Roman Synod to the Bishops of Gaul. On page 12 a quotation from St. Ambrose to the Church of Verecelli and another from Epiphanius of Salamis both make explicit references as to how to understand 1 Tim. 3:2 and how St. Paul was not proposing that Bishops could legitimately continue to have sexual relations with their wives if they were married. On pages 294-299 several quotations by St. Jerome are discussed. Fr. Cochini quotes St. Jerome in Adversus Jovinianum, I, 34. PL 23, 257a-c, and reasons as follows, “ ‘… You surely admit that he who goes on siring children during his episcopate cannot be a bishop. …’ Let us follow his reasoning: Jovinian is wrong about the meaning of unius uxoris virum [ 1 Tim 3:2 husband of one wife] … Invoking a point of law, the apologist [Jerome] means to lean on a solid argument. No one, he opines, could refute him, not even his adversary. The risk would indeed have been serious for Jerome if he had exposed himself to a refutation on such a ground; if the disciplinary practice of the time had been different, Jovinian would not have failed to stress it in response, and Jerome would have been discredited.”
Another quotation from Jerome is cited from his Letter to Pammachius, Ep. 49, 10 and 21. “Here then is what we have clearly said: marriage is permitted in the Gospel, but women, if they persist in accomplishing the duty that is theirs, cannot receive the reward promised to chastity. Let the husbands, if they grow indignant at this opinion, be irritated not with me but with Holy Scripture, better yet with the bishops, the priests, the deacons, the entire priestly, even Levitical choir who know that they cannot offer sacrifices if they accomplish the conjugal act! … Therefore, as we had started to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have consecrated for each sex the beginnings of virginity: the apostles were either virgins or continent after having been married. Bishops, priests, and deacons are chosen among virgins and widowers; in any case, once they are ordained, they live in perfect chastity. Why delude ourselves or get upset if, when we are constantly seeking the conjugal act, we are refused the recompenses promised to purity?”
Then Fr. Cochini states, “ … No more than in Adversus Jovinianum could Jerome have used such an argument if reality denied it… Given the prudence that polemics necessarily imposed on him insofar as word choice was concerned, it is rather unlikely that he would venture to affirm such an important thing without being sure it was indisputable.” So, while some priests did break their vow of celibacy the Church never approved of that. It was considered a disgrace for a married to priest to beget children with his wife after ordination. Also consider that all of the most important figures in the church were celibate, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, (Peter after his ordination) Paul, etc. *************************************
While some people have noted that William A. Jurgens in his three volume set titled Faith of the Early Fathers has an article on Nicea I, volume 1, page 280, where he relates a story that has been passed down by Socrates (b. 380 d. after 439 AD). According to the story a proposal was presented to the Ecumenical Council in Nicea whereby priestly celibacy as a practice for the whole Church was to be enforced, and after a stirring speech by a supposed one-eyed bishop named Paphnutius it was rejected. If a person operates on the assumption that Socrates, a church historian, correctly writes about what happened in 325 AD, then I could see your point. Isn’t Jurgens operating on that assumption ? Fr. Cochini goes into detail about historian Socrates account written in about 440 AD about a supposed bishop named Paphnutius who supposedly made such a proposal for celibacy, but which was rejected. Socrates is the one and only person who claimed to know about it, and this is more then a hundred years after the council. This account seems to be very apocryphal since it cannot be reconciled to many sources including many Fathers of the Church. See pages 16, 19, and 195-200 in his book, plus other pages as well. Also cannon 3 of this Council seems to contradict Socrates claim. See page 19 in the Fr. Cochini’s book or Faith of the Early Fathers paragraph 651 i.
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||