An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[dianaiad]

If you choose to not read the Bible, that is your problem. If I post those scripture references, you will challenge their meaning as coming from my mind. Therefore, I will leave it for a while and see if someone else chimes in on this important subject of Catholic female dedicated celibacy, which is contrary to many Mormon teachings.

Uhm, LJ? A call for references is a very standard, acceptable, request. You claimed those verses exist. It is your job to provide them when asked for them, it is NOT my job to prove that they do NOT exist.

It is also against the rules of this sub forum to assume that you know what I will do if you provide them. Your post, here, is a 'they don’t exist (or I can’t find them) , so I’ll make a side swipe insult on my way out the door in the hope that nobody will notice that I goofed" ploy.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, please do a search of the New Testament for “virgin” and note the context of the verses listed. It may take reading about each of them in full.

It certainly does not state they were nuns, but it does say these were women who maintained their virginity to remain close to the Spirit. To me it is easy to cast these women as proto-nuns or the forerunners of what later became recognized as nuns.

There were also examples of males that maintained their virginity in exchange to a dedication to God and to holiness.

It is easy to miss when reading the NT. You really would need a seeking mind to identify these passages as fitting the terminology of “nuns”. This form of living martyrdom did not really begin until the third century.

OK, First, I see Paul’s treatise on it in 1 Cor. 7…The first thing I see is that he himself puts a very big disclaimer on the thing “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hatho obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”

He then goes on to give his opinion. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion…but he just SAID that he didn’t have it from God. I don’t see a reference to him advising women to stay that way, come to think of it.

OK…next…2 Cor. 11:2–that is a metaphor for the church being a chaste virgin…a bride…to Christ, so that doesn’t work.

The only other reference is Revelation, 14:4…talking about men, and a specific group of men.

IN fact, I don’t see anything in these verses that establish the idea of convents or monestaries…and the thing under discussion here is change; LJ demanded that I show how the Catholics changed from NT times…

and you here are telling me how convents,etc, didn’t show up until the third century. That’s a, well…change.

 

[LongJourney]

There are several sections where widows are also mentioned. The convents came about as a way for these women to be safe, not needing a husband to take care of and protect them. They were therefore protected by the church. (And polygamy wasn’t necessary. )

 

[JHow]

Uhm, LJ? A call for references is a very standard, acceptable, request. You claimed those verses exist. It is your job to provide them when asked for them, it is NOT my job to prove that they do NOT exist.

It is also against the rules of this sub forum to assume that you know what I will do if you provide them. Your post, here, is a 'they don’t exist (or I can’t find them) , so I’ll make a side swipe insult on my way out the door in the hope that nobody will notice that I goofed" ploy.

There is Paul’s (1 Corinthians Chpt 7) endorsement of celibacy: “I would that all men were even as I myself…”

I mean “better to marry than to burn” is not really a rousing endosement of the married state, is it?

That chapter has a whole discussion of virgins, about which you can say "doesn’t say ‘convent’, doesn’t say “nun’”, but the ideas behind holy orders, convents and nuns are rooted in scripture.

 

[dianaiad]

There is Paul’s (1 Corinthians Chpt 7) endorsement of celibacy: “I would that all men were even as I myself…”

I mean “better to marry than to burn” is not really a rousing endosement of the married state, is it?

That chapter has a whole discussion of virgins, about which you can say "doesn’t say ‘convent’, doesn’t say “nun’”, but the ideas behind holy orders, convents and nuns are rooted in scripture.

I see your point here. I WILL mention that this chapter and Paul’s words on virgins carry the only disclaimer in the NT…it’s unique. It’s the only place where Paul comes right out and TELLS us that he’s giving his own opinion, and that he ‘had no commandment of God’ regarding virgins. I loved that part… for oh, so many reasons.



What about the other things I mentioned…prayer to Saints and to Mary for intercession, infant baptism, etc,?

 

[LongJourney]

Prayer to the Saints, and prayer for the dead are founded in later Jewish thought, primarily in Maccabees. Now, if JS & Co. thought it might be cool to copy some of the events in Maccabees, they were familiar with this, particularly in the concept of baptism for the dead. What is wrong with intercessory prayer, since some Mormons tend to obsess with a (to me) strange perversion of it? Again, read I and II Maccabees, and find those passages. You can do it, I KNOW you can.

 

[JeanMichel]

OK, First, I see Paul’s treatise on it in 1 Cor. 7…The first thing I see is that he himself puts a very big disclaimer on the thing “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hatho obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”

He then goes on to give his opinion. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion…but he just SAID that he didn’t have it from God. I don’t see a reference to him advising women to stay that way, come to think of it.

OK…next…2 Cor. 11:2–that is a metaphor for the church being a chaste virgin…a bride…to Christ, so that doesn’t work.

The only other reference is Revelation, 14:4…talking about men, and a specific group of men.

IN fact, I don’t see anything in these verses that establish the idea of convents or monestaries…and the thing under discussion here is change; LJ demanded that I show how the Catholics changed from NT times…

and you here are telling me how convents,etc, didn’t show up until the third century. That’s a, well…change.

Diana, my objective was not to agree or disagree with you. It was simply to partially share my opinion on the matter. At best I think we may see some language in the NT that virgins (male and female) were at least acceptable an acceptable choice for believers.

Justin also discusses their presence among the early Christians. These individuals were the predecessors of the monastic life that began in the 3rd century. Is this a change or is it a formalization of a past practice? I could argue both ways. Paul’s statements do not equate to a rejection of the concept nor does it say that God rejects it. It allows for individuals to choose this lifestyle to glorify God.

Is your view that celibacy is bad or an unacceptable choice?

 

[dianaiad]

Prayer to the Saints, and prayer for the dead are founded in later Jewish thought, primarily in Maccabees. Now, if JS & Co. thought it might be cool to copy some of the events in Maccabees, they were familiar with this, particularly in the concept of baptism for the dead. What is wrong with intercessory prayer, since some Mormons tend to obsess with a (to me) strange perversion of it? Again, read I and II Maccabees, and find those passages. You can do it, I KNOW you can.

LJ, CFR.

Please.

Sarcasm and cheap shots make me irritable.

By the way,I didn’t say there was anything wrong with intercessory prayer, though I DO find it an ironic thing for those who criticise us for proxy work to do. As well, baptism for the dead is specifically mentioned in the NT, and Intercessory prayer to Saints and to Mary is very much…not. By the way, Maccabees is in the OT, even in the Douay-Rheims.

 

[LongJourney]

I said LATER Jewish thought. Please read both Maccabees. I Maccabees may chloroformate you a bit, but I am sure you can cope with that.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, my objective was not to agree or disagree with you. It was simply to partially share my opinion on the matter. At best I think we may see some language in the NT that virgins (male and female) were at least acceptable an acceptable choice for believers.

Justin also discusses their presence among the early Christians. These individuals were the predecessors of the monastic life that began in the 3rd century. Is this a change or is it a formalization of a past practice? I could argue both ways. Paul’s statements do not equate to a rejection of the concept nor does it say that God rejects it. It allows for individuals to choose this lifestyle to glorify God.

Is your view that celibacy is bad or an unacceptable choice?

Mormons send our virgins out to do missionary work for the reasons Paul mentions. However, they are also expected to come home and…get married. It’s not that celibacy is a bad thing; it’s a very good thing–and for those who are not married, it’s a VERY good thing. However, marriage is the optimum thing, and in no way a ‘lesser’ way to serve God. I do note that the NT specifically tells men and women to marry, and make marriage a requirement for being a Bishop and a Deacon, but Paul’s opinions regarding virgins are his opinion…and NOT a commandment of God (by Paul’s own words.)

…and I wasn’t especially attempting to debate you, either; I was simply noting my reactions to the verses I found using your search terms.

 

[dianaiad]

I said LATER Jewish thought. Please read both Maccabees. I Maccabees may chloroformate you a bit, but I am sure you can cope with that.

What do you mean by “later Jewish thought,” LJ?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Mormons send our virgins out to do missionary work for the reasons Paul mentions. However, they are also expected to come home and…get married. It’s not that celibacy is a bad thing; it’s a very good thing–and for those who are not married, it’s a VERY good thing. However, marriage is the optimum thing, and in no way a ‘lesser’ way to serve God. I do note that the NT specifically tells men and women to marry, and make marriage a requirement for being a Bishop and a Deacon, but Paul’s opinions regarding virgins are his opinion…and NOT a commandment of God (by Paul’s own words.)

…and I wasn’t especially attempting to debate you, either; I was simply noting my reactions to the verses I found using your search terms.

Marriage is not necessarily the optimum, and neither is celibacy. The optimum is what one is suited to, what one is called to. The LDS church expects all to be the same, Catholicism understands the differences in people and gives honor to both those who are called to marriage, and to those who are called to celibacy. As Tikitokiguy keeps saying there is no place in the LDS church or (as vague as it is) LDS theology for the celibate. What in the world is the poor homosexual person to do in a church that requires celibacy from those with the attraction but has no hope for them without heterosexual marriage?

 

[JHow]

Marriage is not necessarily the optimum, and neither is celibacy. The optimum is what one is suited to, what one is called to. The LDS church expects all to be the same, Catholicism understands the differences in people and gives honor to both those who are called to marriage, and to those who are called to celibacy. As Tikitokiguy keeps saying there is no place in the LDS church or (as vague as it is) LDS theology for the celibate. What in the world is the poor homosexual person to do in a church that requires celibacy from those with the attraction but has no hope for them without heterosexual marriage?

To me Paul in 1 Cor 7 says we are free in this - that some are married and some are not. He seems to give preference to an unmarried life like his own, but says that this is not a commandment.

 

[LongJourney]

What do you mean by “later Jewish thought,” LJ?

In the several hundred years before Christ.

 

[Todd520]

What in the world is the poor homosexual person to do in a church that requires celibacy from those with the attraction but has no hope for them without heterosexual marriage?

WOW, do you read your posts before hitting submit?

I think expectations in the RCC are the same as LDS, they must remain celebate. Also, I’m fairly certain males with ‘the attraction’ are disqualified from the RCC roles that require celebacy. Unless the nuns have different stanadards, it’s not an easy road in either the RCC or LDS churches

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

WOW, do you read your posts before hitting submit?

I think expectations in the RCC are the same as LDS, they must remain celebate. Also, I’m fairly certain males with ‘the attraction’ are disqualified from the RCC roles that require celebacy. Unless the nuns have different stanadards, it’s not an easy road in either the RCC or LDS churches

You’re not understanding the point. In Mormonism, one of the requirements for “eternal life”, i.e. exaltation, is an eternal marriage/sealing (heterosexual marriage). In Catholicism, marriage is not a requirement for eternal life.

 

[JHow]

WOW, do you read your posts before hitting submit?

I think expectations in the RCC are the same as LDS, they must remain celebate. Also, I’m fairly certain males with ‘the attraction’ are disqualified from the RCC roles that require celebacy. Unless the nuns have different stanadards, it’s not an easy road in either the RCC or LDS churches

I read that several times too, before I decided that I think Zaffirobrant was trying to draw a distinction between the perceived status of married vs. un-married, not that homosexuals are called to celibacy. That is, is the church somehow saying married is better than unmarried? (No, I would say.)

I agree with Todd520 that all persons in the church are called to celibacy outside of marriage. The standard is the same for priest, widower, teenager - everyone.

 

[dianaiad]

Marriage is not necessarily the optimum, and neither is celibacy. The optimum is what one is suited to, what one is called to. The LDS church expects all to be the same, Catholicism understands the differences in people and gives honor to both those who are called to marriage, and to those who are called to celibacy. As Tikitokiguy keeps saying there is no place in the LDS church or (as vague as it is) LDS theology for the celibate. What in the world is the poor homosexual person to do in a church that requires celibacy from those with the attraction but has no hope for them without heterosexual marriage?

What hope does a homosexual person have in Catholicism? Both belief systems require celibacy from those who are burdened with this…and both systems offer the promise that if they stay true to their faith, that exhaltation will be theirs.

We do believe that those who cannot marry here (cannot, not ‘choose not’) will have the opportunity to do so later. The difference between Catholics and Mormons in terms of homosexuality SEEMS to be the perception of what it actually is; this is very simplistic, and shouldn’t be picked over because the analogy has a lot of flaws, but I get the feeling that Catholicism calls it a sin…and we think of it more as a birth defect. Something that one must live with and deal with–and that will be ‘cured’ The sin isn’t in BEING homosexual. It is acting upon those desires.

As for being single in Mormonism…suck it up. I have two daughters who are still single, and may well remain single—because, frankly, neither one of them have met a man worth marrying who wasn’t already taken. That seems to be fairly common, unfortunately, throughout all faiths and groups. I’m actually proud of my kids for not ‘settling.’ They both have faith that if they don’t find their eternal companions HERE, that the pickings will be a lot better later.

As to that, shoot, I have remained a widow for fifteen years now, and that is one of the reasons. The difference is, of course, that I DO have Jim waiting for me.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The sin isn’t in BEING homosexual. It is acting upon those desires.

Catholicism teaches the same thing.

 

[JHow]

What hope does a homosexual person have in Catholicism?

They have EVERY hope in Catholicism.

But look, here is what the catechism says:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.