Catholic practices that have no biblical basis

[midori]

He told us not to babble on (rosary)

Oh, don’t you just hate useless babbling. Someone ought to have a word with the Psalmist. He totally could have trimmed that up.
Oh, wait. The key word is “vain” repetition. So, how does the repetition of the rosary differ from the repetition in the Psalm?

Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good.
His love endures forever.
2 Give thanks to the God of gods.
His love endures forever.
3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords:
His love endures forever.
4 to him who alone does great wonders,
His love endures forever.
5 who by his understanding made the heavens,
His love endures forever.
6 who spread out the earth upon the waters,
His love endures forever.
7 who made the great lights—
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.
10 to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.
11 and brought Israel out from among them
His love endures forever.
12 with a mighty hand and outstretched arm;
His love endures forever.
13 to him who divided the Red Sea[a] asunder
His love endures forever.
14 and brought Israel through the midst of it,
His love endures forever.
15 but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea;
His love endures forever.
16 to him who led his people through the wilderness;
His love endures forever.
17 to him who struck down great kings,
His love endures forever.
18 and killed mighty kings—
His love endures forever.
19 Sihon king of the Amorites
His love endures forever.
20 and Og king of Bashan—
His love endures forever.
21 and gave their land as an inheritance,
His love endures forever.
22 an inheritance to his servant Israel.
His love endures forever.
23 He remembered us in our low estate
His love endures forever.
24 and freed us from our enemies.
His love endures forever.
25 He gives food to every creature.
His love endures forever.
26 Give thanks to the God of heaven.
His love endures forever.

 

[JimG]

My parish had a married priest with many children. He had entered the Catholic priesthood through the ordinariate, having been a married Episcopalian priest. He and his wife were good Catholics, and she ended up working in the chancery office. But I remember her once saying that she would never recommend a married priesthood as the norm for the Catholic Church. Celibacy has been the norm in the western Church for centuries. It should not be changed just to be trendy.

 

[midori]

Priests were able to marry for centuries. Only in the middle ages was this changed.

There’s still a difference between discipline vs doctrine.

We like educated priests, so it’s a discipline that they have to complete a certain course of study prior to ordination. But no one’s arguing that putting priests through seminary and having them earn an undergrad degree in philosophy and an MDiv is doctrinal. Pope Francis could change it tomorrow-- and that’s okay, because we can change discipline with time and culture, or on a case-by-case basis.

Same thing for married priests. It can, and has, and has the potential to change again. No big deal.

But we have no authority to change doctrine.

 

[vsedriver]

But this is not true. Priests were able to marry for centuries. Only in the middle ages was this changed

Priests have never been allowed to get married. Ordination was open to married men. There is a difference. Once ordained a man couldn’t remarry after the death of his wife, deacon or priest.

Married ministry was determined by the Church to be too great of a burden on a man. It divided a man’s attention and even scripture recommends a single man who can focus on their relationship with God because a married man is focused on his family which is the right thing for a married man to do.

 

[LilyM]

jan10000:

But this is not true. Priests were able to marry for centuries. Only in the middle ages was this changed

Priests have never been allowed to get married. Ordination was open to married men. There is a difference. Once ordained a man couldn’t remarry after the death of his wife, deacon or priest.

Married ministry was determined by the Church to be too great of a burden on a man. It divided a man’s attention and even scripture recommends a single man who can focus on their relationship with God because a married man is focused on his family which is the right thing for a married man to do.

Even St Paul speaks of the difficulties of a married person serving in ministry, how their attention is divided between their spouse and their service to the flock. So while clerical celibacy wasn’t legislated for some centuries, it was certainly since his time seen as the far preferred option.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Mostly converts who had been married ministers before becoming Catholic? Why not allow Catholic married deacons to be ordained as priests? Or allow Catholic seminarians to be married? Celibacy is still the norm for them, is it not?

As was explained above, the norm of celibate priests is a discipline, it could be changed tomorrow.

Where would that be? Is it an Eastern rite church?

Simple Diocesean Latin Rite “Norvus Ordo” parish.

One Pope, Alexander VI, had, by common law, several wives (mistresses?). He had children by Vannozza del Cattanei and Giula Farnese and as well had other children Girolama, Isabella, Pedro-Luiz, and Bernardo, by other women.

Yep, priests and bishops and popes have sinned. How glorious it is that God works through imperfect people, it gives me hope!!

 

[historyfan81]

the real reason ( the others are valid but are more justification rather than the main cause)

is that the church didnt want to deal with inharatance

even though people deny this …which come its there they cant deny this

now intepret that as you wish , whether it be to avoid conflict since the sons like they do would figth for inharatence (which makes a lot of sense) or beacuse the church officials where greedy (which also makes a lot of sense for the period)

 

[Zaccheus]

Convert3:

Catholicism is based on traditions handed down from the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus. Scripture is not in itself complete since the New Testament was written years after Christ.
Others can provide more detail if you want, but that’s the basic reason.

But this is not true. Priests were able to marry for centuries. Only in the middle ages was this changed.

Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. The Church has never claimed it was a doctrine, nor that Scripture commanded that priests be celibate.

@midori thank you. I had not thought of using the psalm as an answer to this claim.

 

[EndTimes]

Please excuse my ignorance on this matter but why does the Catholic church bring in such things that aren’t supported by scripture?
Without a strong biblical connection isn’t the introduction of new practices simply the will of humans instead of God?

A lot of doctrines and practices have been introduced over the centuries that have little to no scriptural basis. And now we have a pope who is inventing his own stuff again.

Such as?

Without specifics - your post is lacking…

Also Keep in mind that the Church started BEFORE the NT was Written…

 

[AlNg]

the norm of celibate priests is a discipline, it could be changed tomorrow.

I knew that. The question was why does it stay the way it is since Jesus chose a married man to be the first Pope. He could have easily chosen a celibate man, but he did not.

 

[JimG]

Does the Scripture mention Peter’s wife? Was she still alive?

 

[Zaccheus]

I knew that. The question was why does it stay the way it is since Jesus chose a married man to be the first Pope. He could have easily chosen a celibate man, but he did not.

Jesus chose a Jew to be the first Pope. He could have chosen a Gentile but did not. That’s not a reason to claim no Gentile should be Pope.
Nor is the fact the first Pope was a married man a reason to insist we can’t have a celibate priesthood.

 

[AlbMagno]

Because Jesus Himself chose to be celibate. Celibacy started as a movement within hermits and monasticism to imitate Christ in the fullest way.

 

[midori]

I knew that. The question was why does it stay the way it is since Jesus chose a married man to be the first Pope. He could have easily chosen a celibate man, but he did not.

He chose a fisherman. Does that mean that every subsequent Pope afterwards needs to be a professional fisherman? Do we get to argue whether that counts bass fishermen, fly fishing, and shrimp boats, or does it just count commercial boat experience?

Or does it mean not-a-literal-fisherman-but-you-gotta-have-a-career-first-in-an-unrelated-field? So, no lifelong clergy, but you need to have some kind of resume experience doing other things. Like being a field hand, or being a stonemason, or a brick baker, or an accountant?

He chose an uneducated guy. Does that mean that no Pope can have anything above a high school education? High school dropouts being preferable?

He chose a 1st century Hebrew. Does that mean that every subsequent Pope needs to be a convert from Judaism? Gentiles, do not apply? As @Zaccheus nicely pointed out?

Peter had a brother. Does that mean that no only-sons are allowed to be Pope? You gotta have a sibling?

Peter was martyred. Does that mean that every Pope afterwards needs to be killed for Christ, or else his Papacy was empty?

Peter walked on water and healed the sick with his shadow. Is that the new test of the Papacy? If you don’t have these basic skills down, sorry, you’re not Pope material?

Not every Pope is going to be a carbon copy of every other Pope. Some were successful, others were failures. All were unique in their own way, and all did their job in one way or another. And most interestingly, even with the bad ones— the Church survived them.

But you’ve got this odd laser focus on Papal celibacy and their marital status. Perhaps you can help us understand why we’re getting into monomania territory with it, or can we talk about a wider variety of issues?

 

[midori]

Does the Scripture mention Peter’s wife? Was she still alive?

Yes, we talked about that about 100 posts ago, and intermittently since then.

To sum: we chatted about how she didn’t appear in the obvious place, where her mother was sick. It says that the MIL was healed and waited on them, but it doesn’t make any mention of Peter’s wife.

Then we brought up the thing in 1 Corinthians, where Paul sez something that technically translates as “sister woman” in the Latin (sororem mulierem) and Greek (ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα), and the discussion as to whether “woman” was to be translated as “wife” (which it can, based on context), or whether it reflected a more general desire to be accompanied by a bevy of devout women who tend to their practical needs, as we knew Jesus was followed by?

Since we’re talking about scriptural stuff, we haven’t mentioned any of the legends. Like, Peter’s wife was the daughter of Aristobulus, which would have made Mark brother-in-law to Peter. And that Peter’s wife was martyred first, and he comforted her, before requesting that he himself be crucified upside-down. (But if you look at the Acts of Peter, which describes his martyrdom under Agrippa, she’s also absent from that account as well. I think it’s mostly based on Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, so if you want to go dig up a copy of the Strobata or Church History, that’s where you’d look.)

 

[AlNg]

Nor is the fact the first Pope was a married man a reason to insist we can’t have a celibate priesthood.

What is the argument as to why women cannot be ordained as priests? I thought it was because Jesus only chose men?

 

[AlNg]

He chose a fisherman.

There is no restriction in place about a fisherman being ordained as a priest. There is a restriction in place about a married Catholic deacon being ordained as a priest.

He chose a 1st century Hebrew. Does that mean that every subsequent Pope needs to be a convert from Judaism?

There is no restriction in place about a convert from Judaism being ordained as a priest. There is a restriction in place about a married Catholic deacon being ordained as a priest.

Peter had a brother.

There is no restriction in place about brothers being ordained. There is a restriction in place about a married Catholic deacon being ordained as a priest.

But you’ve got this odd laser focus on Papal celibacy and their marital status. Perhaps you can help us understand why we’re getting into monomania territory with it, or can we talk about a wider variety of issues?

Because there is a shortage of priests and there are many good and decent married Catholic deacons of high character who would make excellent priests but are not allowed to be ordained. Jesus did not restrict married men from being chosen as priests. Why not follow his example and allow married Catholic deacons to be ordained as priests? Would this not help alleviate the shortage of priests?

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

Nor is the fact the first Pope was a married man a reason to insist we can’t have a celibate priesthood.

What is the argument as to why women cannot be ordained as priests? I thought it was because Jesus only chose men?

I think it’s the other way around. Jesus only chose men because women can’t be priests.
I believe there’s a theological principle involved but I don’t recall enough to explain it.

 

[midori]

Jesus did not restrict married men from being chosen as priests. Why not follow his example and allow married Catholic deacons to be ordained as priests? Would this not help alleviate the shortage of priests?

Ah! That’s a much better conversation.

But then the question becomes— look at the groups that do have a married priesthood. The Anglicans/Episcopalians, the Orthodox. All of those are facing a clergy crisis as well, as their clergy ages, but isn’t replaced by younger men coming up in the seminary.

Likewise, if someone wants to participate in the ordained ministry, but still want to be married, why not join the permanent diaconate? If marriage was the only thing standing in the way, then surely we would be swamped with deacons?

I somehow doubt that the answer is that simple— because it’s not that simple for those other groups that suffer similar crises.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Why not follow his example and allow married Catholic deacons to be ordained as priests?

As has been stated many times, the Pope could change this discipline tomorrow.

Would this not help alleviate the shortage of priests?

No. Not many deacons would want to become priests, they more than anyone know the burden of priesthood and how that burden works on a marriage.

Even the expense of a married priest adds a burden to parishes.