A Limited Priesthood

I have a difficult time understanding why the priesthood is limited to only celibate men in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Bible seems to suggested married life is a requirement for the clergy (see 1 Tim 3:2ff) and Paul makes several references in his letters to deaconesses.

I do not mean to question or belittle the discipline of celibacy; it is a high calling. But, it is not a lifestyle which everyone is meant to pursue. Does that mean that this is the only way one is to become a priest?

If we are to suggest that Christianity is the universal religion, should we not also have a universal priesthood? One that is made up of all peoples regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, gender and marital status?

The priesthood will fail to be universal so long as it excludes women and married people from its ranks. Without a universal priesthood, can we have a universal church?

The Physical and Spiritual Aspects of the Eucharist

I notice in the Roman Catholic Church the heavy focus on the physical (material) part of the Eucharist; that it really becomes Christ's physical body and blood. I have wondered if there is any spiritual aspect to the Eucharist as well; that it hosts the spirit of Christ.

There is more to Christ than just his physical body. Humans are made up of both body and spirit. Jesus, being born a man, also has a body and a spirit.

I believe that when we consume the Eucharist there is more to it that putting Christ's body and blood into our mouths and down to our stomachs. We not only consume Christ physically, but we also consume him spiritually.

Consuming the bread and wine is a physical act, but consuming the spirit entails much more. It is a putting on of Christ. One's spirit must be open to receiving him.

Is it possible to consume the bread and wine and yet fail to consume the spirit of Christ? If this happens does one receive the Eucharist at all?

Is it possible to receive Christ's spirit at the Eucharist, without receiving the physical elements?

Which aspect should we focus on?

It is me.

I have decided that it is not wise to continue on this struggle without telling someone from my home denomination so I emailed my regional minister (comparable to a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church) this weekend.

He called me this morning to discuss some of my difficulties as well as what attracts me to the Catholic Church. We spoke for about half an hour. He assured me that I still have a home in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and that our church welcomes - and encourages - personal theological struggle.

Honestly, he didn't tell me anything I wasn't expecting. And I found comfort in the phone call. He didn't tell me to "get out" or that I wasn't fit for the ministry.

I have been worried about people from back home finding out that "gasp!" I am having questions about the church, so I have been using a pseudonym on my blog. My regional minister assured me however that I can be true to myself and my struggles within our church.

So, I'm dropping my pseudonym and I'm going to own this struggle. This is who I am.

Take a right at Canterbury and straight on to Rome

It has been suggested to me by several individuals that the solution to my present dilemma is to join the Episcopal Church and become a priest because they allow for a married priesthood. After about 5 years or so I could request a "pastoral provision" to enter the Roman Catholic Church as a married priest.

I have never really considered this path before. I might be more personally comfortable within an Episcopal Church, but there is a great deal of controversy within that tradition which I am decidedly uncomfortable with.

Beside that, this path is very sneaky, underhanded, and dishonest. I cannot use the church to achieve a particular ends.

From the Roman Catholic perspective this would mean that the path to the priesthood is through receiving an invalid sacrament and serving in an unrecognized ministry for sometime in order to be considered a candidate for the priesthood. That is inherently contradictory.

The trouble is in the timing. If God had allowed me to fully recognize this call earlier in life, before I was married, there would be no problem. If God called me later in life, after I was ordained, it would still be a challenge, but at least the road to priesthood would be open to me.

But it is precisely because God, in his providence, choose to give me this knowledge (that the fullness of faith is found in the catholic church) at this particular station in life that presents the problem. That I am a married man, outside of the Roman Catholic Church, not ordained but undergoing theological training. The end result of a earlier call or a later call is the same (priesthood), but not so for a "middle call."

I wonder if there is greater meaning to God's particular timing here.

My visit to an Eastern Catholic Church

A few people have informed me that Eastern Catholic Churches allow for a married priesthood. I had never considered looking at any of these churches, but I am at least open to any path which God may be calling me on. So, I visited an Eastern Catholic Church yesterday.

It was my local Melkite Greek Catholic Church. A brief history of the church can be found on their website:

The Melkites, or Byzantine rite Catholics of Middle Eastern origin, are the descendants of the early Christians of Antioch (Syria). Christianity was established in this area of the Middle East by St. Peter before he traveled on to the imperial city of Rome. In the 5th century, there arose some teachers who said that Christ was not truly God and truly man as well. They would not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church as defined by the Council of Chalcedon (451A.D.) Those in the Middle East who did accept the decision of Chalcedon followed the lead of the Byzantine emperor and were dubbed Melkites or King's Men from the Aramaic word "melek" meaning King. (link)

It was foreign to me, and yet very beautiful. The church building was covered from floor to ceiling with icons. They were primarily tile mosaics which surrounded hand-drawn paintings. Each set of icons illustrated a piece of scripture or history. The words of scripture themselves were as important as the images in the display.

The priest walked around the sanctuary carrying incense with him as he went. This actually happened several times and the icons were also "incensed."

Nearly the entire liturgy was chanted, and there was a high degree of participation required of the laity present. The faithful were not merely spectators at this celebration.

I am not sure if they use the same calendar as the Western Churches. The Easter declaration was proclaimed within the service: "he is risen," which suggests they too are in the season of Easter. The lectionary is certainly different however. They used Jn 9:1-38 which is typically a Lenten scripture in the West. (USCCB)

It was simply nothing like anything I had seen before. It certainly was not Roman Catholic. And yet, they are a church which is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. There is a great deal of diversity which can be found within the realm of the Catholic Church, both in practice and theology (to some extent). These Eastern Catholic Churches are self governing, have their own liturgy, practices, and canon law.

Unity is not the same as uniformity.

Ever since that experience I have wondered if the Eastern Catholic Churches might serve as a model for the unity of the Protestant Christian Churches with Rome. Could the Protestant denominations one day be in communion with Rome and yet be self governed with their own liturgy, practices, and law?

Why is a return to the Roman Rite necessary for Christian unity (in the Protestant/Catholic question)? There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches which while different remain in communion with Rome. Maybe this type of unity could some day be offered to Protestant churches.

Someday we might see church marquees that read Lutheran Catholic Church, Episcopal Catholic Church, Disciples of Christ Catholic Church, Pentecostal Catholic Church, and so on. I understand the high degree of simplicity I express here, but I am still young enough to be an optimist.

I am called

I continue to struggle with this dual call I have discovered: To enter into full communion with Christ's Church, and also to enter into the ordained ministry.

Normally this would not be a problem, but married men are not normally considered as candidates for the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

My pastor has shared with me many other, quite worthy, ministries which are open to the laity. I could be a pastoral assistant, youth minister, cathecetical instructor, and some day a deacon. As I discern each of these calls I feel a certain hole in my being. That I would be falling short somehow of the call God has placed on my life.

My specific call is realized in the Army National Guard where I currently serve as a chaplain candidate. The chaplain candidate program is for seminary students who are preparing for the ordained ministry in their respective faith traditions. Chaplains must be ordained ministers within their own tradition. I would not be able to serve my brothers and sisters in uniform unless I am on a track that leads to ordination.

I shutter as I contemplate the thought of abandoning this call, especially as I see the great need for ministry in the armed forces. The workers are few as it is.

I believe my call to the ministry is stronger than my call to any particular church. I am seeking a path which will allow me to do both: to lay down the "protest" (i.e. enter into full communion with the Church) and to be God's priest. I do not know if any such path exists.

God is above the brokenness of his visible Church on Earth. I will serve him, and submit to his call for me.

I have resolved to cling to my call to the ordained ministry. If I must choose between the two (ministry or communion), I will choose to serve the Lord - even within a separated ecclesial community.

It's not about me.

Someone gave me a very humbling comment to my last post. You can read it here.

In the Protestant Church, worship often feels very much like a show which is preformed for the congregation. Church members feel justified to complain to the preacher if a sermon was not to their liking, or to the music director if they didn't choose enough hymns/praise choruses.

In the Protestant Church, we often judge the quality of worship based on our emotions following the service. Did the music speak to me? Did the sermon inspire me? Did I get a good feeling out of the worship?

This is so backward. Worship is all about God, focused on him and his word. By secondary benefit we are fulfilled by our worship of him. Worshiping God completes us, but this is not our primary concern.

That is one more thing I love about the Catholic Church - is her proper focus in worship. Even as I have been contemplating entering into full communion I still need to constantly refocus. I am not entering the church for any comfort I might find. I enter because I believe it is what God desires of me.

So, I need to rethink my previous post. So long as I am concerned with my own feelings during the mass, my focus is not where it should be. I will worship God on his terms, not mine.