In his early days at Econe, Archbishop Lefebvre recruited the assistance of some talented teachers. One of these was Fr Francois-Olivier Dubuis.
Fr Dubuis was an antiquarian almost in the old Anglican Style ... one could imagine him getting on like a house on fire with the great Anglican Cornish antiquary, Canon Doble. At Econe, Dubuis taught patrology and history.
Born in 1921, he had begun life as a Calvinist, and was a pastor. He converted to Catholicism in 1954, and was ordained in 1964. He then taught at the Sion diocesan seminary.
When, in 1971 (28 June), the Archbishop ordained his first priest for the Priestly Society, Fr Dubuis joined in the laying-on of hands. The priest who was then ordained remembers the participation of Fr Dubuis.
Fr Francois-Olivier Dubuis was married.
He died in 2003, having written a large number of learned books.
And having assisted in the great enterprise of founding the SSPX.
The above example of Father Dubuis shows once again that also in the Latin Church married priests (as well as married deacons and lesser clergy in minor orders) can be of invaluable service to Christ's Mystical Body. I dare write this, knowing full well that many, if not most, of my fellow "traditionalist" confreres categorically deny the rightfullness of ordaining married men, even to the diaconate. I think that they this to be anti- traditional and even unirthidox: but on both accounts they are mistaken. One only needs to look at the Eastern Rites in union with Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to see that a married clergy - complementing an unmarried clergy - is both traditional and orthodox. And - despite past propaganda to the contrary - there are more benefits than disadvantages. One only needs to take an honest look as to where there is more liturgical and doctrinal heresy, in the celibate Latin Church, or the Eastern Church, which has both a celibate and married clergy...
I, Albertus, was an SSPX seminarian and can only agree. In fact, the "law" of celibacy, and the alleged impediment of holy orders to a valid marriage are both invalid as ultra vires papal jurisdiction, as tbe secular clergy have the right to marry de jure divino.
In this putative age of diversity one can always count on many Latin Rite Catholics to cite the praxis of the Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholics and advance the idea that us Latin Rite Catholics must imitate them.
It is a sort of a modern secular version of a reverse Uniatism despite the clear history of celibacy + continence in the Latin Rite that Jesus counseled in Matt 19:12 - see also Isaias 56:3-5
The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide is quite useful in this matter.
Saint Paul also counseled concerning his desire that others be like him - single and celibate.
Some claim the The East has this issue mastered.
No. They. Don't.
The Latin Rite got it right; right from the get-go and all of the documentation and the reasons for Continence (See Pope St Siricius and "The Decretals" and "Cor Unum") in its Apostolic Origins.
In a nut shell it is this. In the OT, the Levitical Priests had to live away from home during the time they served in the Temple so they would not be having conjugal congress with their wives and so they could fully dedicate themselves to their service at the Altar
New Testament Priests offer the Sacrifice daily, ergo, perpetual continence
Of course many want all of this done away with; 'It is just a discipline':'Canon Law can be changed to reflect the reality:' We can just make a few changes and be just like the East...
The blitheness with which 2000+ years of Orthopraxisc tradition is expected to be simply jettisoned is typical of what happens in a revolutionary age.
I am interested in this Priest. Can anyone reference where I can find more background on him?
Mick Jagger, according to scripture (I Cor 9:5) and Casti Connubii, no human legislator can deprive a man of the right to marry, which is of Divine Law. According to Lateran II and Trent, the "law" of celibacy is a human law. Game over.
P.S. So much for Cornelius a Lapide, I've read his comnentary, which is not only irrelevant, it's rubbish in the light of the above. Trads are going to have to eat humble pie over clerical celibacy: as a requirement, it's jurisprudential (not to mention self-serving) nonsense. And, speakimg if St Paul and celibacy, I note that you ignore I Cor 9:5.
P.P.S. Mick - you are tge heteropractic, revolutionary one - there us no 2000 years tradition of a requirement of clerical celibacy. This just some fellow trads insisting on their counter-factual in the face of contradictory evidence
BTW, Mick, the decretals of Ss Damasus and Siricius sre falsely premised - they assume tbe survivsl into New Testament times ofvthe OT ceremonial law. As St Thomas says, such observance of tbe Old Law in NT times is not only dead, but deadly. It is the matter of mortal sin. It is erroneous to think tjat sexual relations between a priest and his wife renders him ineligibke to offer mass, through impurity. If you respond that it is not rotually impure, bit impure simpliciter, you are guilty if blasphemy, because sex is not of itself, impure. Many of my fellow trads need to wake up to themselves wdt this issue.
P.S. Magister Johannes, in Memento viventium, si memineris dominam quaedam oxoniensem, gratissimo animo sim ...
Sorry, what a ridiculous typo: it should be "quamdam"!!
Dear Albrecht. I copy + paste from the USC Blog a comment re St Paul
I was actually talking with a very solid Priest (who was also a canon lawyer) on this very subject. I was talking about the online article that Canon Lawyer Ed Peters wrote about a year ago showing that the wording of Catholic Canon Law indicates continence for married deacons. The part of the law saying that the wife 'has to agree for her husband to be a deacon' is precisely referring to the wife having to agree to be continent.
The Priest I talked to also pointed out how this is what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 3 when he said that clergy are to be the 'husband of one wife', because if they got remarried it was a sign (to the Apostles) that the candidate was unable to practice continence.
As to the decretals of Pope Siricius they are nor falsely premised because morality has never changed and continence is not a mortal sin, it is the tradition of the Late Rite.
Dear Albrecht As much as you may dislike it, the facts are all on the side of the Catholic Church and its orthopraxis of celibacy/continence
In a matter of minutes I wil chase down a reference to a few 19th century councils that mandated celibacy/continence for Othrodox Priests
Dear Albrecht. Excuse my bad memory. I chased down what I thought was legislation referring to The Orthodox but it had to do with Eastern Rite Catholics:
There have been at least two Eastern Catholic synods in the late 19th century that made celibacy obligatory, that of Sharfeh in 1888 for all priests of the Syriac Catholic Church and that of Alexandria in 1898 for all clergy in Major orders of the Coptic Catholic Church. I do not know if these laws remain in force today.
This is from a gentleman named Konstantin whom I used to dialogue with a long time ago on Free Republic. As I recall he is a member of the Orthodox Church.
Certainly the Latin Rite can forbid a man to marry in that if he denies to be a priest he must be celibate/continent in The Latin Rite - and that even goes, according to Dr Ed Peters, to married Deacons
Dr Ed Peters is entirely mistaken and is a legal positivist.
Does Divine Law take precedence over human law? If the answer is "yes", you've lost the argument.
Dear Albrecht I am not sure how you wil be able to explain away Jesus and the Evangelical Counsels
and as it is the case that Jesus is the model for priests it does seem to make your quest to depict celibacy as somehow a major sin or error an impossible mission.
In any event, I thank you the exchange.
Well, nothimg you've said grapples with the real issues, M J.
This is just the thin end of the wedge. First it's married priests, before you know it it'll be polygamous priests...because Paul was an ignorant man of his times when he wrote that `husband of one wife` malarkey, and he has no concept of a loving committed polygamous relationship. It's all part of the master plan, mark my words.
Tony V - obedience to divine law is NOT the tbin edge of the wedge. The alleged law is a necessary but insufficient cause of the present problems in the Latin church.
Bishop Michael Bawdin (valid Utrecht + Duarte-Costa Holy Orders) stated the SSPX were using Utrecht line Old Catholic Priests in Arkansas 1975-1979.
At an SSPX seminarian/Priest meeting 1978,he stated Archbishop Lefebvre,with an Old Catholic Bishop in the room right beside him,said,
"If something happens to me,Bishop George Shimtz is my replacement Bishop."
Also,Fr.Roy Randolph was a married former Anglican Priest,conditionally Ordained Catholic 1967,was an active SSPX then SSPV Priest till his death in 1988.
Post a Comment