As an Orthodox I do not accept the Council of Trent of course. Yet, it is true that Orthodoxy has seen celibacy as a higher calling (though without dogmatically defining it as such). I will point out though that in the early church, celibacy was attached to monasticism, and it was monasticism that was considered the high calling, not holy orders. Indeed, ancient monks often tried to run away and had to be forced to be ordained.
It is interesting that you speak of married priesthood as something "to be tolerated." This clearly shows the view that the married priesthood is somehow a second-class priesthood. This opens up a huge discussion that ought to have its own thread; but I see the Churches as historically having views of marriage, monasticism, and Holy Orders that are times rather confusing and in tension.
I think the antidote to these problems is a return to the original New Testament ideas of Church leadership and marriage. Currently, we are closer to this in Orthodoxy, but both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches could continue to revisit the nature of priesthood and marriage in light of the New Testament.
Joe
Here is an article written by Traditional Roman Rite priests explaining the Catholic Church's historical teaching about clerical celibacy. It certainly challenges the widely accepted view that married priesthood was the norm for the Church of the 1st millennia. It also challenges those who favor extending the priviledge for more married men to be ordained to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Church. The author's contention is that even in the East, celibate clergy had allways been the norm, and that it was the Eastern Churches who deviated from the original Apostolic practice of the Church, by permitting the regular ordaination of married men.
CLERICAL CELIBACY
"Clerical celibacy has a biblical basis in the evangelical counsel of
Our Lord as relayed in St. Matthew's Gospel (19:12), also taken up by St.
Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (7:8-9, 25-26, and especially
32-35), and confirmed by St. John in the Apocalypse (14:4-5). It is clear
that once the Apostles received the call, they did not lead a married life.
The tradition of clerical celibacy was solemnly proclaimed by the
Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council, in 325. Canon No. 3,
unanimously approved by the Fathers, admitted of no exceptions
whatsoever. The Council considered that the prohibition imposed thereby on
all bishops, priests, and deacons against having a wife absolute. All
subsequent councils that have addressed the subject have renewed this
interdiction.
Not only would it be a violation of Sacred Tradition to blot out a
custom decreed for 2,000 years to be absolutely obligatory, but also one must
recognize that 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. That is, it is not merely disciplinary in nature.
The Council of Carthage in 390 stated that celibacy of is
Apostolic origin.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403): "
It is the Apostles
themselves who decreed this law."
St. Jerome (ca. 342-420): "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 (401-417): "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 (1007-1072) wrote: "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."
There is a reason for this Tradition.
The cleric in major orders,
by virtue of his ordination, contracts a marriage with the Church, and
he cannot be a bigamist. St. Jerome in his treatise "Adversus
Jovinianum," bases clerical celibacy on the virginity of Christ.
The universal law of clerical celibacy confirmed by the Council of
Nicaea applied, and still applies, to the Eastern Church as well as the
Western. It is noteworthy that at that Council, the Easterns (Greeks)
made up the overwhelming majority. Previously,
the Council of Neo-
Caesarea (314) had reminded all Eastern clerics in major orders of the
inviolability of this law under pain of deposition.
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
(673-735) 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 the Modernists like
to claim, the original practice from which the Roman Catholic Church
diverged."
I happen to disagree with the author however, on the subject of the married Diaconate. I do not believe that there was ever a major complaint made by the west about married men being ordained Deacons in the East. The Latin Tradition that the priest stands "In Persona Christi" makes sense to me for a reason that the Church held a celibate priesthood in the highest esteem. However, in the East a Deacon is simply a servant who assists the priest and congregation at Mass and serve the community of the faithful(at least that is how I understand the role of deacon). I see no reason why a celibate Diaconate should be held in higher esteem than married deacons. That is just my opinion, however, the Church should have the final word.
