'83 Code egalitarian?

[Geremia]

Compare 1917 can. 124:

Clerics must lead an interior and exterior life holier than that of laity and should excel in rendering them an example of virtue and good deeds.

with 1983 can. 276:

§1. In leading their lives, clerics are bound in a special way to pursue holiness since, having been consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders, they are dispensers of the mysteries of God in the service of His people.

[Daniel]

Maybe, maybe not. The 1917 certainly places more emphasis on the "good role model" and the leadership aspects. But is holiness really something that can be regarded as hierarchical or multi-tiered to begin with? I'd think that every man--whether ordained or not ordained--is supposed to live as holy a life as he possibly can. All other things being equal, it's not as if there's one standard for laity and a higher standard for priests.

[Geremia]

is holiness really something that can be regarded as hierarchical or multi-tiered to begin with?

Yes. There's a hierarchy in heaven corresponding to the level of merit/charity one reaches at death. Our Blessed Mother is at the top, and lesser saints under her.

[Daniel]

is holiness really something that can be regarded as hierarchical or multi-tiered to begin with?

Yes. There's a hierarchy in heaven corresponding to the level of merit/charity one reaches at death. Our Blessed Mother is at the top, and lesser saints under her.

That's not what I'm getting at.

What I'm saying is, everybody is supposed to live as holy a life as possible. If you're capable of living X units of holiness, then you should live X units of holiness, the "perfect" life (X/X = 100%). There's no sense in saying that there are different bars/standards/tiers--i.e. that priests should live "good" lives (e.g. 0.9X/X = 90%) whereas laymen only need to live "decent" lives (e.g. 0.7X/X = 70%).

The fact that people don't always live perfect lives doesn't mean they shouldn't try to.
And the fact that the X value is greater for some people than it is for other people doesn't really change anything either, apart from the overall quantity of holiness (which doesn't seem too important since it's not something we have direct control over).
Plus, I don't think we can even say for sure that the lowest priest's X is necessarily higher than the highest layman's X. I mean, ordination gives grace (which presumably increases the X value as well)... but does it really give that much grace? There have been some pretty holy non-priests...

[Geremia]

ordination gives grace (which presumably increases the X value as well)... but does it really give that much grace?

Yes, Orders gives more grace because priests have more souls to be responsible for. There's an inequality in the sacraments:

can. 3: If anyone says that these seven sacraments are so equal to each other that one is not for any reason more excellent than the other, let him be anathema.

Laymen must fulfill the precepts, but priests and religious must fulfill the counsels.

Several Fathers and Doctors have interpreted the 100/60/30-fold of the parable of the sower (Mt. 13:8: "And others fell upon good ground: and they brought forth fruit, some an hundred fold, some sixty fold, and some thirty fold.") as the reward due to virgins, widows, and the married (or to martyrs, virgins, married). The point is that different states of life allow one to reach different degrees of perfection.

Trent defined the dogma that the state of celibacy is superior:

Canon 10. If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy, let him be anathema.

I don't think we can even say for sure that the lowest priest's X is necessarily higher than the highest layman's X.

Certainly some laymen (e.g., Abraham, St. Joseph, et al.) have been holier than some priests, but those are exceptions (cf. II-II q. 152 a. 5 ad 2, where St. Thomas gives "two reasons" that "a married person may be better than a virgin").

[Kephapaulos]

This thread reminds me of the Tradition in Action response to Fr. Ripperger's talk on states in life where he said that there is not such as a single state and that everyone is meant to be a priest, religious, or married spouse. I got confused by the issue, but virginity is indeed higher spiritually than the married state.

[Geremia]

This thread reminds me of the Tradition in Action response to Fr. Ripperger's talk on states in life where he said that there is not such as a single state and that everyone is meant to be a priest, religious, or married spouse.

Are you referring to this? Do you have a link to Fr. Ripperger's talk?He probably meant that even single people living in the world should devote their lives to God. I have no idea how TIA comes to the conclusion that Fr. Ripperger "aimed at filling the seminaries and noviciates with persons who do not have religious vocations and to sabotage the lay celibacy." They argue against Vatican II, but it was actually after Vatican II that the Order of Virgins and public vows of perfect chastity were revived, something they, too, promote.

There certainly are virgins, "eunuchs, who were made so by men" (Mt. 19:12), i.e., virgins not able to marry for whatever reason, but unless they use their freedom from the bonds of marriage to devote themselves more fully to God, their virginity isn't holy Christian virginity.

There are 4 vocations: matrimony, virginity, religious state, priesthood.

[Geremia]

Certainly some laymen (e.g., Abraham, St. Joseph, et al.) have been holier than some priests, but those are exceptions (cf. II-II q. 152 a. 4 ad 2, where St. Thomas gives "two reasons" that "a married person may be better than a virgin").

[Kephapaulos]

Are you referring to this? Do you have a link to Fr. Ripperger's talk?

Yes and yes (The second part has what specifically pertains to my confusion when Fr. Ripperger talks about those who end up staying single.).

Part 1



Part 2

[Geremia]

Yes and yes (The second part has what specifically pertains to my confusion when Fr. Ripperger talks about those who end up staying single.).

Excellent talks! Thanks for posting.

Video 1 @27:22: "Married state is not a vocation."
I've heard some people arguing that before. I don't think there's a consensus among theologians on this. Fr. Ripperger says married state is a vocation in a broad sense, but not in the a proper sense.
Vocations Explained ch. 3 Matrimony—Is it a vocation?, for example, seems to take "vocation" as synonymous with "state in life."
Fr. Doyle's excellent Vocations uses the word "vocation" in the proper sense.

Video 2 @29:21: Women have more desire for marriage.
That's interesting he interprets one of the women's three curses of Gen. 3:16 ("thou shalt be under thy husband's power") that way. It's more along the lines of translating that part of the verse: "your craving [?????????????] shall be for your husband".
@41:53: Single state
Yes, what I thought he meant. He says @44:25 that single people remaining so should consider taking a vow of chastity.