Ordinariate Ordinations in Melbourne

(Corrected and updated) I’ve just received news that eight priests will be Ordained at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, East Melbourne on Saturday, 8th September 2012 at 10.00 a.m., four for the Archdiocese of Melbourne and four for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.

With Archbishop Denis Hart, The Very Rev Fr Harry Entwistle, +Ordinary, announced today the names of the candidates from the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross as follows: James Grant, Neil Fryer, Ramsay Williams and Christopher Seton.

The candidates from the Archdiocese of Melbourne are: Andrew McCarter, Benneth Osuagwu, Jerome Santamaria and Kevin Williams.

This is terrific and highly encouraging news. Our prayers are with all the candidates.

I was initially confused by earlier reports, because this ordination will be for more than one jurisdiction. It is an interesting decision to ordain the Anglicans along with this years secular clergy for the Melbourne Archdiocese. I would be interested in your take on this decision.

About Schütz

I am Catholic, married to Cathy, father of Maddy & Mia. Since 2002, I have been the Executive Officer of the Ecumenical & Interfaith Commission of the Archdiocese of Melbourne. I was once a Lutheran pastor, but a "year of grace" and soul-searching led me into the Catholic Church. It was a bumpy ride, but with the support of my (still Lutheran) wife, I was finally confirmed on June 16, 2003.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Ordinariate Ordinations in Melbourne

  1. William Tighe says:

    What about Bishop Robarts of the TAC? Has he decided to remain an Anglican?

  2. Matthias says:

    is that former Anglican Bishop James Grant??
    and do you know where one can access mass times for the Ordinariate here ni Melbourne as I have tried and cannot find any.
    Oh went to Mass at St Phillips at North Blackburn on Thursday 9am ,on my way to work and was impressed with the large number there of faithful people ,I reckon about 70

  3. Joshua says:

    No, not that James Grant – there is another. I’ve found out a few further details about these good men which I’ve just posted on my blog.

  4. Mike says:

    And another . . . ordained on Friday. To the Diaconate.
    http://www.capuchinfriars.org.au/pages/default.asp?pid=411

  5. Pingback: 12 Ordinations in as many hours « A Priest Downunder

  6. Jim Ryland says:

    David,
    A sacrament is a sacrament and Holy Orders, though sometimes administered to men related to a specific religious community, need not be exclusive. The last ordination that I attended included a Maronite along with his Latin brethren. The Walsingham ordinations were choreographed (I suspect) for maximum impact but why should Anglican Use priests and deacons be ordained in segregated ceremonies?

    • Joshua says:

      I think you may have misunderstood – the Capuchin deacons were ordained separately a few days ago now, while the Catholic priests – both diocesan and ex-Anglican – will be ordained together in a month’s time.

    • Schütz says:

      No sacramental reason, of course. There is the fact though that a bishop usually ordains his own priests for his own jurisdiction. That of course cannot happen for the Ordinariate as the Ordinary of the Ordinariate does not have the power/authority to ordain. Ordaining the Ordinariate priests with the Melbourne candidates could give the impression (to the uninformed) that they, like the archdiocesan priests, come under the authority of the Ordinary of the archdiocese.

  7. Gareth says:

    I am happy with the new Ordinariate, but can’t say I am 100 per cent in favour with combining ordinations with men who have came through the Seminary systems.

    Put your self in the young Seminarians shoes – imagine if you have given your whole life totally to the priesthood and then have to share the stage with a man that at the end of the day (may) be going home to a wife.

    Even when permission was first given to the very rare exception of ordaining former Anglican clergy (remembering in the Catholic Church’s eyes they are completly null and void), it was with the disclaimer that celibate priests keep to public, parish roles and married clergy to discreet roles (fair enough), so I dont really see how the Church should pretend that they are in anyway the same.

    Every Blessing to and praise God for the new priests

    • Joshua says:

      I think that’s really a bit unkind, Gareth! And what you say about “discreet [non-parish] roles” applies only to ex-Anglicans in dioceses, not (obviously) to the new Personal Ordinariates.

      Pray Our Lady of the Southern Cross for an increase in charity! ;-)

      • Gareth says:

        How is it unkind Josh??

        At an ordination to the Catholic priesthood, we find a man consecrating his body to Christ the Savior; he saves it for her. He is then presented with a white alb as a sign of perpetual continence.

        Priests of a Personal Ordinariates are validly ordained but we have to recognise as a Catholic community (in our symbolism and beliefs) that in no way do they make the ultimate sacrifice as above as generally speaking such men go home to their wifes.

        I have no issue with the new Ordinariate ordinations, but please, please please do not confuse the two or pretend they are one and the same with the holy celibate priesthood.

        • Schütz says:

          Dear, o dear, Gareth – I am afraid that it is you who are confused and mistaken. Celibacy is not of the essence of the priesthood, but rather the most fitting way of living out the sacrificial life that every priest is called to. The married priests commit themselves to the same sacrificial consecration to Christ and his Bride, but are called to live that sacrifice as husband and father. In fact, a little sympathy may be in order, as I can tell you from experience that it is in fact easier to live that life of sacrificial dedication as a celibate than it is as a married man.

          • Gareth says:

            Dear O dear David,

            Surely you know that the official Church teaching is that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. As lay Catholics, we have to respect and support that.

            My point was that certain aspects of the ceremonial nature of ordination to the priesthood (such as a man prostrate on the ground giving his whole life and body to Christ, taking a promise to their Bishop to remain celibate and then further receiving priestly gifts that have symbolism relating to purity) makes it as such that it may not be appropriate to combine a general Diocesan ordination with a Ordinariate ordination.

            After all, Ordinariate priests are not required or called to serve as a normal Diocesan priest and we as a Church community should be clear as such.

            I certainly did not say that I found anything wrong with Ordinariate priests or that their ordinations are in anyway invalid – their ordinations should certainly be celebrated by the Church community, BUT combining the two may really not be appropiate or sending the wrong message to Church community that a man giving himself wholly to Christ is anyway the same as (hopefully) very rare exceptions to the rule.

            I think Josh and yourself condemnation of my posts have ‘jumped the gun’ (not for the first time I made add) and generally hope you have humility to recity this.

    • Schütz says:

      They are the same sacramentally, Gareth, although they come under different canonical disciplines. The situation is little different from the ordination of permanent deacons who are married along with transitional deacons who are celibate. That happens all the time. It simply shows that not everyone has the same calling.

  8. Gareth says:

    David: The married priests commit themselves to the same sacrificial consecration to Christ and his Bride, but are called to live that sacrifice as husband and father.

    Gareth: What you say is true, but only if we keep in mind the full Church teaching on the matter that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage and the Church only intends to include married priests in very, very circumstances.

    If the Church intended married priests to be one and the same as celibate men, they would have similar ministerial roles. It happens, they have nothing of the sort.

    Also remember combining the two in a ceremonial nature may send the wrong message to lay Catholics sitting in the pews who generally would have little knowledge on the matter (come on I here it all the time by misguided Catholics that allowing the permanent Deacons and allowing exceptions to the celibacy rule is a subtle slippery slope to a married priesthood, so I have no doubts that things would be similar here).

    Celbrate Ordinariate priests all we like – don’t get me wrong I am happy for them and the Church community, but keeping them separate in ministerial role and ceremonial nature of holy ordination really is the right thing.

    • Clara Geoghegan says:

      Gareth, you say: If the Church intended married priests to be one and the same as celibate men, they would have similar ministerial roles. It happens, they have nothing of the sort.

      Am I missing something? How do their ministerial roles differ? The married priests I know preside over the Eucharist, annoint the sick, hear confessions, and run parishes. How precisely do their ministerial roles differ?

      • Gareth says:

        Clara: How do their ministerial roles differ? The married priests I know preside over the Eucharist, annoint the sick, hear confessions, and run parishes

        Gareth: When Paul VI allowed the very rare cases of former married Anglican ministers (remembering Anglican orders are completly invalid) to become Catholic priests upon entering the Church, it was highly recommended that their pastoral duties not be as a Diocesan priest in a normal parish role, but rather in more discreet roles such as Chaplains to different Church services or assisiting the Bishop as needs be.

        This was not due to not confusing the faithful on the sacred discipline of celibate priesthood and perhaps for economic reasons (the majority of parish’s in Australia simply cannot afford it).

        In orthodox Dicoseses, this is still the general rule.

        Ordinariate priests are ok, but like so many issues the Church at the local level does not seem to adequately have explained things to the faithful.

        • Schütz says:

          The Paul VI ruling is not exactly comparable to the case of the Ordinariates, Gareth. Paul VI was advising for the case of married convert priests within Latin Dioceses – the Ordinariate is effectively a “diocese” of sorts with its own parishes served by its own priests. While Anglicanorum Coetibus envisages that in the long run the rule for celibacy will apply to new candidates for the priesthood arising from within the Ordinariate, it necessarily envisages that married Anglican clergy being received into the Ordinariate and ordained for the Ordinariate will serve the Ordinariate in exactly the same way that diocesan clergy serve in any Latin diocese: ie. they will be parish priests for the Ordinariate, not hospital chaplains for the Latin Dioceses!

          • Gareth says:

            Oh come on David, comparing Ordinariate priests and Diocesan priests is like comparing chalk and cheese.

            The Ordinariate will be a very, very small section of the Church in its priests would be expected to serve parish’s in small, most probably inner-city envioronments in Australia’s major cities. Their flock will generally be of a particular (social, economic and church) background in which most being former Anglican clergy will have somesort of experience in.

            Diocesan priests are called to serve anywhere from massive outer-suburb parishs, or rural parish’s that cover huge distances. They minister to diverse Catholic flocks.

            Recognise that Paul VI ruling does have some comparsion – as Ordinariate are ordained for a partiuclar ministry that in many cases differs greatly from the average Diocesan priest and Bishops have responsibility not to scandalise the faithful into thinking that the celibate priesthood is nothing but the norm that is required to be prayerfully and actively supported.

    • Schütz says:

      Gareth, there is certainly a tradition in the Church that celibacy is a “higher” calling than matrimony – although what “higher” means in this context is worth discussing – and for any given individual only one calling will be their true calling, and hence it is immaterial to discuss whether one is “higher” than the other. I don’t know if this honourable tradition can be raised to the level of dogmatic truth that one is required to affirm as a Catholic. It may well be that in our time the Church is learning the importance of marriage as a holy calling, and hence that this honourable tradition needs to be recast somewhat in order to communicate the truth that both Marriage and Celibacy are good and holy callings for human beings. This is not to say that I do not fully support the normal requirement in the latin Church for priests to be celibate – it is, as the Eucharistic liturgy (in my old Lutheran translation) put it: “fitting and right”.

      Notably, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach this honourable tradition. Rather pointedly, it quotes St Ambrose who said:

      “There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others…. This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.” (2349)

      • Jim Ryland says:

        David,
        Your last quote from Ambrose sums-up the subject rather well. You also raised a very valid point that families and the attendant obligations to them often complicate the execution of ministerial duties. A case may also be made for those families that share the vocation in spirit and support and aid married clergy.

        Ordinaries were usually celibate, I would think, because of their sacramental duties and responsibilities in what were often geographically large sees. We forget that what we now know as “priests” were few and far between. Deacons were the Ordinary’s “assistants” in the early church.

        Celibacy owes as much to the mutual assimilation that occurred between Christendom and the Pagan Greco-Roman thinking. It only became an “issue” later as monastic communities grew and we began to see popes arise from those communities and their disciplines. The Eastern Church seems a little closer to the traditional model than does the Latin See.

        • Gareth says:

          Jim: The Eastern Church seems a little closer to the traditional model than does the Latin See.

          Gareth: I am 100 per cent certain that this rather untrue and the Eastern Church have abandoned apostolic tradition on the matter rather than the West.

          • Clara says:

            Sorry Gareth but you are 100% wrong.

            Jim – I have a friend who is an orthodox priest and his wife was interviewed extensively before the bishop would accept him as a candidate. The wife of a priest in many orthodox churches has a very real pastoral role.

            • Gareth says:

              Clara,

              Celibacy is an apostolic tradition.

              The heretical East in abandoning the Papacy, abandoned it.

              I am friends with a few Orthodox priests and their pastoral role is not even 10 per cent (no lie) to close to or demanding to that of the average Australian Diocesan priest, some whom are responsible for congregations into their thousands.

            • Schütz says:

              I don’t think there is an historical link between “abandoning the papacy”, as you call it, and the discipline of celibacy. The Melchites, as I understand them, have always been in communion with the Bishop of Rome and have never had the discipline of celibacy as in the west.

              Calling the East “heretical” is a bit strong, and reminds me of my many Eastern friends who like to call us “heretics”. I think that since the renunciation of the 1054 anathemas by Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1962 should really have put an end to the days when we called each other “heretics”.

          • Adam says:

            Celibacy an ‘apostolic tradition’ !!!!
            Where did you get that idea from? How many apostles were married and how many were celibate? And when did celibacy as a Church-imposed law come into effect? Centuries after the last apostle died. With respect, I think you really need to check your ecclesiological and historical facts on this error.

            • Clara says:

              Sorry Gareth, but the understanding of the role of the Papacy in the western Church developed AFTER many Eastern traditions had been established. It also evolved in response to a range of political developments in the west resulting from the turmoil following the fall of the Roman Empire – and without consultation with the Church in the East.

              You might like to enrol in my course on Byzantine History . . .

            • Gareth says:

              Sorry you are both wrong – apostolic tradition on the matter can be traced back as far as some of the writings surrounding the Council of Nicea and even then the tradition was old.

              You might want to read Church Fathers on the matter.

              There was no evidence that any of the apostles had wives accompany them after being called by Our Lord, in fact there is hard evidence that St Peter’s wife had already passed away, possibly while giving birth.

            • Schütz says:

              See again my old post on Gregory of Nazianzus: http://scecclesia.com/?p=1988. The best history sees celibacy as a ancient discipline which, yes, does go as far back as the apostles (eg. Paul), but was not a blanket rule until much later.

            • Schütz says:

              I have been surprised myself to learn that many of the Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus (whose father was a bishop), were sons of clerics, even bishops. See http://scecclesia.com/?p=1988

            • Gareth says:

              David/Adam,

              It is not uncharitable to call a spade a spade, when people in their ignorant put forward baseless arguments that we should learn from the East and that the Papacy is in error, when a clear historical review reveals to the contrary.

              I am still confident in my claim that clerical celibacy has apostolic tradition. Clerical celibacy has a Biblical basis (Matthew 19:12) and was also taken up by St Paul (Corinthians). It is pretty clear that once the Apostles received the call, they did NOT lead a married life.

              The Council of Nicea (in which Eastern Bishops were in majority) in its Canons unanimously imposed celibacy on all Bishops, priests and Deacons.

              Councils that followed confirmed this: the Council of Carthage stated celibacy is of Apostolic origin.

              Writings of Church Fathers also confirm this: St. Epiphanius of Salamis: “It is the Apostles themselves who decreed this law.”

              St. Jerome “Priests and deacons must be either virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual continence after their ordination…. If married men find this difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order.

              Pope St. Innocent I “This is not a matter of imposing upon the clergy new and arbitrary obligations, but rather of reminding them of those which the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers has transmitted to us.”

              St. Peter Damian wrote in the 1050s: “No one can be ignorant of the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders.”

              The Eastern Church began at a late date to violate its own law of
              celibacy. The Quinisext Council of 692, which St. Bede the Venerable
              called “a reprobate synod,” breached the Apostolic Tradition
              concerning the celibacy of clerics by declaring that “all clerics except
              bishops may continue in wedlock.” The Popes refused to endorse the
              conclusions of the Council in the mater of celibacy, and the Eastern Church planted the seeds of its schism.

              The German scholar, Stefan Heid, in his book, Celibacy in the Early
              Church, demonstrates that continence-celibacy after ordination to the
              priesthood was the absolute norm from the start even for the separated
              married ordinand — a triumph of grace over nature, so to speak. The Eastern practice we now see was a mitigation of the rule, not, as Modernist Catholics like to claim, the original practice from which the Roman Catholic Church diverged.

  9. Joshua says:

    Gareth, I really think you get awfully overwrought, and need to calm down.

    Of course, as you rightly point out, celibacy/virginity for the sake of the Kingdom is objectively a higher state than the married one – if it were not, St Paul could not have written that he hoped that all were as he was (that is, unmarried).

    Nor do I think a celibate priesthood is anything other than a blessing and a potent countercultural witness especially in this perverse age; and I hope the Roman Church never changes its discipline on this point, ever.

    (At the same time, the Pope may and does permit exceptions for former Anglican – and Lutheran – ministers, as all men know.)

    But to speak of celibate priests as somehow pure and holy in their lives in a manner so unutterably beyond “dirty married priests, running hot from bed to altar” (I say this ironically, but reflecting the way you seem to disrespect them) sounds really bizarre, to the extent that it seems to demonstrate some kind of hang-up about sex, to be quite frank.

    Don’t you know that the liturgy makes no distinction between married and unmarried in their prostration before the altar, and their being robed in white?! Yes, strange to say, both go through the exact same ordination. Three things only are different: there is a special prayer for ex-Anglican ministers that alludes to the fruitfulness in God’s providence of their former ministry (not saying it was valid, but esteeming whatever in it was a vehicle of God’s love, truth and grace – above all, all in it that led toward Catholic unity); there is – of course – no vow of celibate chastity (but that is not done at a priestly ordination anyway, but rather mentioned at diaconate or even in private beforehand); and – shock! horror! – by custom in many places, it is their (blush, O Gareth) wives who help vest them in their chasubles!

    I really think you need to get a grip, mate.

    • Gareth says:

      Josh,

      you have misquoted my post – did I really say anything along the lines of ‘d… married priests, running …’

      I am not into being high and mighty but that comment seriously warrants somesort of withdrawal as my original post was about respect for celibacy and the priesthood, rather than belitting anyone.

      Double standards as I recall even on this forum for no legitimate reason you having a crack at others for your own community issues and clamoring for weekly Mass when it is widespread knowledge that this community has major problems and is seen by many in the wider Church community as self-destructing, rather than an example of holiness.

      I’m not the one that needs to have a good look in the mirror.

      • Gareth says:

        Just to clarify what I meant by stating that using the term ‘the married priest goes home to his wife’ I was not pointing towards something untoward or as Josh unfairly claims something’dirty’ but rather a reminder that celibate priests have made the ultimate sacrifice and we should never underplay this or pretend that is one and the same with married life.

        Father Bob is not the same as married Father Bob and his wife and three children.

        A solider that gives their life on the battlefield is not the same as a soldier that serves their country (highly honorable as it is).

        As my link states, there is difference betweeen a ‘good’ and a ‘better good’. When such issues arise as the Ordinariate, it is always good to remember this difference.

        • Clara says:

          I don’t think we can make a comparison about the ‘sacrifice’ of a celibate priest and that of a married priest.

          Perhaps we should consider the ‘sacrifice’ made by the wife and family of the married priest. A friend is the daughter of an Anglican priest – she claims no curate ever worked harder in the parish than her mother. Similarly, my orthodox priest friend has to work at a full-time secular job and run his parish on the side because the Church cannot give him a just wage to support his family of five children.

          On the other hand I know plenty of celibate priests who enjoy regular outings to restaurants, the opera and the theatre . . .

        • Schütz says:

          I disagree strongly. Both the soldier (who dies on the battlefield or who doesn’t) and the priest (who is married and who doesn’t) are the same thing, in essence. What is different is the particular way in which their vocation is lived out.

          • Gareth says:

            David: Both the soldier (who dies on the battlefield or who doesn’t) and the priest (who is married and who doesn’t) are the same thing, in essence

            Gareth: There is no second-class priesthood true. But that wasnt the point trying to be made – the point was there is a difference between a ‘good’ and ‘better good’.

            David: What is different is the particular way in which their vocation is lived out.

            But that ‘difference’ is no small cookies. A difference so big that the Church desires a particular vocation direction (eg married priesthood) in very rare circumstances whilst the it should desire the standard celibate priesthood in 98 per cent of cases because firstly so few men fit the criteria for the vary rare circumstances and if one stratches the surface on Catholic teaching on the matter one finds the style of vocation to be supported, defended and held in esteem is the ‘better good’ option/difference.

      • Joshua says:

        What community? I don’t get it.

        And we ALL need to look in the mirror, so don’t be Pharisaical.

        Pray for me, a sinner.

        • Gareth says:

          Hi Josh,

          I just wish to reiterate the point that the post in question referring to ‘going home to one’s wife’ was sincerely written with the intention to highlight the special grace of celibacy.

          Using the term ‘going home to one’s wife’ is not belittling anyone – after all becoming man, God in the second person of the Trinity chose celibacy as His own way of life. He asked the twelve apostles, even though some may were or previously had been married, to leave EVERYTHING to follow Him.

          If you want put a ‘dirty’ spin on the original post as such, then I really think that says something and not about me.

          The reference to the community – I put it subtly so outsiders won’t recognise. Discussing in a public forum is not appropriate – if you want to discuss further in private, I am more than happy. I am sure David would be kind to pass on my details if you wish. It is something I feel strongly about.

  10. Adam says:

    It is amazing to see the numbers of ordinandi increasing. And the new Ordinariate will bring in more to the Church as disaffected Anglicans leave to jump the Tiber. After all, it is the truth that will set one free and this is the time for that.
    On the matter of ordinations etc, it is also worth noting that of the most recent episcopal appointments in Australia (where there are loads of vacant Sees) all of them, Perth, Brisbane, Toowooomba, Ballarat, Bendigo, have been filled by outsiders. Not one of these appointments has come from the diocese into which they have been plummeted. Interesting I think as it seems to say that no priest or local auxiliary has been chosen. What does this say about the local clergy?
    Also, of the above, two, Perth and now Ballarat have been religious order men. In Melbourne, the most recent was a capuchin. So what does that say also about the
    episcopal lineage we are seeing in Australia, where diocesan priests where usually always the new episcopacy?
    There is a swing to religious order priests which must be of some concern.
    Surely this is a wakeup call to seminaries and others concerning the episcopal appointments.
    Just who will take over Canberra and Hobart is yet to be revealed but surely there may be some surprises in those two. And Canberra also needs a new auxiliary.
    The episcopal factory must be hard at work on the combinations and permutations.
    Semper fidelis.

    • Schütz says:

      I don’t see it as something to be “concerned” about. As has been pointed out many times, it is a strong tradition in the East to appoint monastics as bishops. There is no reason (in a sort of “receptive ecumenism” way) why we should not benefit from such a tradition.

      • Adam says:

        Agreed. Simply saying that there has been a swing of a sort in the selection of Australian bishops in last few years forgetting Polding earlier on. In the United Kingdom of course the appointment of Basil Hume by Paul VI (whose appointments were really landmark) as Archbishop of Westminster was mammoth. From Abbot one month to Archbishop and then Cardinal all within 12 weeks was remarkable. And what a bishop he was. Most recently the new bishop of Aberdeen, the former Abbot of Pluscarden monastery is turning out to be a major ‘success’. Could he be moved on to Edinburgh when the incumbent cardinal retires. The former abbot had allegedly been asked to go to Westminster and declined. Well maybe his time as an archbishop is yet to come.
        But some of the great bishops of the Church have been former monks. Well may in continue. After all the monastery is the breeding ground for the soul’s power in following Christ.

      • Gareth says:

        David,

        I have no overt issue with new Ordinariate per see, but such a decision by the Church does leave ordinary Catholic open to why doesnt the Church really communicate in full to us particularly when there are so many questions to be answered (eg how would trainees for the priesthood for the Ordinate be eventually one and the same with Diocesan priests – a valid question when you have admitted they are living out their vocations in greatly different ways).

        I still believe that combining the two in an ordination ceremony whilst not be wrong, could be viewed by some Church members (I am not the only one saying it) as somewhat ‘awkward’, particularly when the two set of men pledge their obedience to a different Bishop??

        I have attended ordinations for men for the FSSP and MGL and they were in separate ceremonies than Diocesan priests, so I dont see why the same procedure is not followed.

        I think you are also downplaying celibacy to some degree to state married and celibate priesthood are the ‘same thing’, in essence.

        I knew what you meant here, but remembering Catholic theology is not merely clerical celibacy is to be seen not merely as of ecclesiastical institution, but part of what is more broadly known in Catholic moral theology as “divine positive law,” initiated by Christ and His Apostles. Technically speaking if one read enough into the issue, celibacy is not merely disciplinary in nature.

        Catholic Sacred Tradition dictates that by virtue of his ordination, a man contracts a marriage with the Church.

        As Catholics, we should view disregarding such a tradition equal to blotting out a sacred custom decreed for some 2,000 years.

  11. Ramsay Williams says:

    Not sure why all the huffing and puffing about celibate and non-celibate priests in reference to the Melbourne Ordinariate. Three of the four Ordinariate ordinands are celibate!!

    • Schütz says:

      Welcome Ramsey to the SCE commentary table! It is an Honour to have you on board. I do apologise for the tactlessness of some of my guests at the table.

      Yes, this thought occurred to me the other day, but I was not entirely sure of the marital status of every member of the group and so refrained from making a comment.

      We wish you and your confreres all Gods blessings for your preparation for the big events in September.

  12. I honestly don’t see what the fuss is about really. When a man (married, celibate, or monk) responds to the Divine mandate and invitation to become a priest and serve the Heavenly Liturgy; our prayers and moral support for all of these men who have responded to the priesthood should be our utmost priority.

  13. And to note, to call the East “heretical” is just not a smart move – many Eastern Catholics in Eastern Europe have died for their communion with Rome at the hand of the Communists. Some of them were priests, priest wives, children, and bishops (who were coincidentally, sons of priests themselves like Blessed Paul Godjich).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *