Celibacy as a requirement

[fix]

There are more and more one priest and no priest parishes these days. Permitting optional celibacy would certainly result in an increase of priests and a far greater availability of the Eucharist to our congregations. As Joan Chitester has said, it seems like the Vatican puts celibacy ahead of the availability of the Eucharist.

I think we get the number of priests we deserve. I doubt God is calling less men. The problem is us.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

I think we get the number of priests we deserve. I doubt God is calling less men. The problem is us.

I agree that God is not calling less men. I just believe He doesn’t care whether or not they are married. I also don’t think He cares whether they are men or women. You say the problem is “us”. Why are we the problem ? I say the Church’s obsession with celibacy is the problem.

 

[maryjk]

I agree that God is not calling less men. I just believe He doesn’t care whether or not they are married. I also don’t think He cares whether they are men or women. You say the problem is “us”. Why are we the problem ? I say the Church’s obsession with celibacy is the problem.

But the Bible and church tradition says He does care, so what you believe really doesn’t matter.

We as a people are the problem because we are not answering the call. (not me personally, I am a woman)

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

But the Bible and church tradition says He does care, so what you believe really doesn’t matter.

We as a people are the problem because we are not answering the call. (not me personally, I am a woman)

I’ll leave women’s ordination for another time. As regards married priests that is strictly tradition. I never believed in “Limbo” which was Church tradition and I guess my beliefs did matter because the Church has changed the tradition. Tradition is not written in stone. The Church also believed in slavery at one time.

 

[Vincent]

I say the Church’s obsession with celibacy is the problem.

Her “obsession” with celibacy is grounded on her “obsession” with Christ. Apart from the *logos *of love, it’s always going to look like a problem to be fixed, rather than a gift to be received.

 

[fix]

I agree that God is not calling less men. I just believe He doesn’t care whether or not they are married. I also don’t think He cares whether they are men or women. You say the problem is “us”. Why are we the problem ? I say the Church’s obsession with celibacy is the problem.

We cannot separate the Church from Christ.

 

[Janet_S]

I’ll leave women’s ordination for another time. As regards married priests that is strictly tradition. I never believed in “Limbo” which was Church tradition and I guess my beliefs did matter because the Church has changed the tradition. Tradition is not written in stone. The Church also believed in slavery at one time.

You claim The Church believed in slavery at one time–

What Church documents can you recommend I read to support your claim that the Church believed in slavery? Or you just assume this is the case?

Pope Benedict XIV condemned racial slavery in a few apostolic letters. I think every other Pope did as well. If you know something different, please present it.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

You claim The Church believed in slavery at one time–

What Church documents can you recommend I read to support your claim that the Church believed in slavery? Or you just assume this is the case?

Pope Benedict XIV condemned racial slavery in a few apostolic letters. I think every other Pope did as well. If you know something different, please present it.

Slavery was a part of western culture for most of Christianity. While many spoke out against it and freed their slaves, it is my understanding that no definitive statement was made until 1870.Clearly the Church is anti-slavery today.

 

[SPH1]

Let me explain myself a little more. I am objecting simply because it is not right to put that requirement on someone. I personally dont think i will be marrying, and i serve God in many ways. But i dont see a problem with married people serving the lord and it doesnt seem to be a hassle that much. It isnt accomplishing anything so i dont see why it is around. I dont think we need sex, it helps to be single, but i know many, many people who serve the lord as great warriors and leaders that are married. In fact the most prominent, Godly man i know is married.

That’s just it, the married man does not really serve the Lord, not fully anyway:

He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 1 Cor. 7:32-33

Clearly, Scripture PREFERS a celibate clergy.

Peter’s “wife”: Scripture refers to Peter’s mother-in-law, so the presumption is that Peter was or had been married. But we have Gospel testimony from Peter himself that he (and the other apostles) gave up everything…including wives…to follow Christ:

[28] Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
[29] “I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God [30] will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” Luke 18:28-29

If Peter did not, then Peter would not have been fully serving Christ per Paul in 1 Cor. 7:32-33

1 Tim. 3 & Bishops: This does not necessarily mean that Bishops were currently married. Paul specificually refers to the wives of Deacons (1 Tim. 3:11) but not so the Bishops’ supposed wives. Paul most likely means that Bishops should not have had multiple marriages/divorces…for how could a series of marriages/divorces show that they were qualified? (You might ask that of the various divorced/remarried Protestant Pastors.) It also means no remarriage after becoming a widower…not just one wife at a time.

Again, if Paul meant that Bishops HAD/SHOULD be married, that would make them non-servers of the Lord per 1 Cor. 7: 32-33.

The typical Protestant interpretation of 1 Tim. 3 is absolutely ridiculous. It would make the clergy EXCLUSIVE to those who do not serve the Lord (married men); while EXCLUDING from the clergy those who do serve the Lord (unmarried men). 1 Cor. 7:32-33.

Finally, compare the Bishops in 1 Tim 3 with the widows in chap. 4. They are also to have been married once, but they are widows, not currently married. I have an old article: Nuns in the New Testament Church?

shasta.com/sphaws/cathview-nuns.html (Linked from my old website)

The real question is this: If Protestantism is supposed to be the true Church or expression of Christianity, how come virtually none of their leaders are willing to give up everything…including wives…to follow Christ and fully serve the Lord?

Fact is, Scripture prefes a celibate clergy and to do away with it would relegate the Holy Catholic Church to a second class clergy. (It’s not perfect, but the best that can be had.)

 

[FCEGM]

if you would be perfect, meaning if you would become, meaning in the future. Not in this body. Otherwise you have just decreed that the resurection is pointless, for if we are perfect we would need no change of ourselves. That is the point of the resurection, to make us new. A perfect person has no need for a change. Jesus came not for the righteous but the sinners. If you are righteous, you have no need of my Jesus. Dont be discouraged, you have beaten GOD!!! your amazing!!! now revel in your own perfection, while the rest of us trust in god to some day perfect us.

Then I’m afraid you have missed the whole point of our redemption in and through the Life, Death and Resurrection of Our Savior and are seeing the perfection that Christ Jesus said we must have as strictly related to our personal resurrection. You are forgetting - or never knew - that we can be and are being transformed by His grace to moral perfection through obedience to the One Who was Obedient. Our moral perfection, then, is an anticipation of that full perfection when our souls are joined to our bodies in Glory. Christ lives and reigns in the hearts, minds and souls of all being made into true images of Him. Do you not know that here and now we are to be partakers of the divine nature? Do you not know that our righteousness is HIS righteousness which He bestows on all who call upon His Name and obey His word? If, however, one unwisely chooses to fight against His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church then that one is on a path to unrighteousness.

This topic is obviously off-topic, so if you wish to continue please begin another thread.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

That’s just it, the married man does not really serve the Lord, not fully anyway:

Clearly, Scripture PREFERS a celibate clergy.

Peter’s “wife”: Scripture refers to Peter’s mother-in-law, so the presumption is that Peter was or had been married. But we have Gospel testimony from Peter himself that he (and the other apostles) gave up everything…including wives…to follow Christ:

If Peter did not, then Peter would not have been fully serving Christ per Paul in 1 Cor. 7:32-33

1 Tim. 3 & Bishops: This does not necessarily mean that Bishops were currently married. Paul specificually refers to the wives of Deacons (1 Tim. 3:11) but not so the Bishops’ supposed wives. Paul most likely means that Bishops should not have had multiple marriages/divorces…for how could a series of marriages/divorces show that they were qualified? (You might ask that of the various divorced/remarried Protestant Pastors.) It also means no remarriage after becoming a widower…not just one wife at a time.

Again, if Paul meant that Bishops HAD/SHOULD be married, that would make them non-servers of the Lord per 1 Cor. 7: 32-33.

The typical Protestant interpretation of 1 Tim. 3 is absolutely ridiculous. It would make the clergy EXCLUSIVE to those who do not serve the Lord (married men); while EXCLUDING from the clergy those who do serve the Lord (unmarried men). 1 Cor. 7:32-33.

Finally, compare the Bishops in 1 Tim 3 with the widows in chap. 4. They are also to have been married once, but they are widows, not currently married. I have an old article: Nuns in the New Testament Church?

shasta.com/sphaws/cathview-nuns.html (Linked from my old website)

The real question is this: If Protestantism is supposed to be the true Church or expression of Christianity, how come virtually none of their leaders are willing to give up everything…including wives…to follow Christ and fully serve the Lord?

Fact is, Scripture prefes a celibate clergy and to do away with it would relegate the Holy Catholic Church to a second class clergy. (It’s not perfect, but the best that can be had.)

I agree that if a man has the gift of celibacy he should use it and maintain his celibacy.
I do have a problem with your comment about a minister not willing to give up his wife or Peter giving up his wife. I believe that would go against God by telling a man to leave his wife. God hates divorce so why would he have someone leave his wife? That doesnt make sense to me.

 

[SPH1]

I agree that if a man has the gift of celibacy he should use it and maintain his celibacy.
I do have a problem with your comment about a minister not willing to give up his wife or Peter giving up his wife. I believe that would go against God by telling a man to leave his wife. God hates divorce so why would he have someone leave his wife? That doesnt make sense to me.

Fact is, scripture prefers a celibate clergy.

As for Peter and the others, they did give up everything…including any wives…to follow Christ. But you err in thinking that means divorce, and Christ wasn’t speaking of divorce when he talked about giving up wives or children. They would have been looked after…and I think that legend has it that Peter’s “wife” followed and traveled with him, both in a celibate state.

You’re Protestant? (saw your profile) How come virtually no Protestant leaders fully serve Christ by being celibate or unmarried? How come virtually none receive the divine gift of celibacy? How come celibacy is not really valued in Protestantism (except perhaps as a temporary state between marriages)?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Fact is, scripture prefers a celibate clergy.

I have absolutely no clue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

the church did.

Not the roman church, nothing catholic had to do with it, so dont hide behind your church. I love catholics to death, but they dont know the facts usually.

Stick around, specops, and we’ll change your mind about that.

They will say that the roman church established the bible, but they werent around until AD 500 if i recall right.

Well, here are two early quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (*Letter to the Smyrneans *8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Notice that Ignatius does not explain his use of the term “Catholic Church” which we would expect if he had just coined a new term. Instead, he just mentions it casually suggesting that the term had been used for some time prior. Given the fact that Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and Paul, this is evidence that the Church had been called the “Catholic Church” within the lifetime of at least the Apostle John.

If anyone really wants to challenge it i will find sources. the apostles knew what was Spirit-inspired, and they could make those decisions. ANYWAYS, bible was used somewhat around like 130AD i believe,(in a form) and that was way before the church.

Would you like to reconsider this position in light of the above?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:*

 

[clmowry]

Married Priests are allowed in the Orthodox Church. Anybody know what percentage of the priest in the Orthodox Church are actually married? google doesn’t seem to be getting me to the right place.

Chuck

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

We cannot separate the Church from Christ.

I don’t quite get your point. Are you saying Christ wanted celibate priests?

 

[FCEGM]

I don’t quite get your point. Are you saying Christ wanted celibate priests?

Hope this helps:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2118907#post2118907

 

[specops777]

Stick around, specops, and we’ll change your mind about that.

Well, here are two early quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (*Letter to the Smyrneans **8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Notice that Ignatius does not explain his use of the term “Catholic Church” which we would expect if he had just coined a new term. Instead, he just mentions it casually suggesting that the term had been used for some time prior. Given the fact that Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and Paul, this is evidence that the Church had been called the “Catholic Church” within the lifetime of at least the Apostle John.

Would you like to reconsider this position in light of the above?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

um sir, werent those two of the letters that were proven to be forgeries?Because the church wrote documents to show that it had indeed existed in the early days, and they were proven forgeries. and also you wont change my mind, i researched the Catholics alot before i decided to speak out.

On the subject of church tradition. Noone should use this as an arguement, it should have scripture based proof not the words of a pope. All tradition proves is that your church is wrong along with you, that you are all incorrect. So stop using the magical words " but it defies church tradition". the tradition of the church never involved use of cars, so maybe you shouldnt use those either. they never had good medicine until recently, so lets put that away for catholics too. No, thats irrational, you dont base your ideas on what a man who is dead and still dead thought was right.

p.s. Bob, you sound like a man with a ok head on your shoulders, maybe a little wrong but seem better than these guys, please send me a pm to show your accepting my invitation to talk, i dont want to force something upon you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

um sir, werent those two of the letters that were proven to be forgeries?

Um, no.

“His letters were lost for a while and then marred with interpolations; thankfully, though, we have the authentic texts today. They are a fascinating window into the soul of a martyr and a fiery testimony of the love that drove the martyrs to lay down their lives as witnesses to Christ. They are also evidence of the problems a bishop of the era faced and of the true apostolic teaching that provided a corrective to the heresies of the day. In unambiguous fashion, Ignatius calls Jesus “God” sixteen times, arguing forcefully for his full divinity and authentic humanity (over 200 years before Constantine). He identifies the Eucharist as the true flesh and blood of Christ and condemns those who fail to value it. In his letter to the Church at Smyrna, we find the earliest surviving description of the one, universal community of Christ as “the Catholic Church.””

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea1.asp

and here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - Newman

This reading will get you started on the road home. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

On the subject of church tradition. Noone should use this as an arguement, it should have scripture based proof not the words of a pope. All tradition proves is that your church is wrong along with you, that you are all incorrect. So stop using the magical words " but it defies church tradition". the tradition of the church never involved use of cars, so maybe you shouldnt use those either. they never had good medicine until recently, so lets put that away for catholics too. No, thats irrational, you dont base your ideas on what a man who is dead and still dead thought was right.

How does one argue with this?

p.s. Bob, you sound like a man with a ok head on your shoulders, maybe a little wrong but seem better than these guys, please send me a pm to show your accepting my invitation to talk, i dont want to force something upon you.

Thanks. I think you’re swell, too. But I’m happy to chat in public where everyone can hear and “benefit” from all you have to say.