Celibacy

[Church_Militant]

Wormwood:

Well what about celibacy? That was added over 1000 years after Christ, after the church began to lose a lot of land to inheritance. Seems like a convenient time to change what had been a suggestion of celibacy, into an enforced rule of celibacy. I await your inevitable reply

This is not accurate at all… Celibacy was not “added” later, it’s there from the get go with Christ Himself and then St. Paul as well.

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

1st Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (Emphasis mine)

Just because non-Catholics don’t like to admit it doesn’t make it something that was supposedly “added”. That’s just not so at all…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Wormwood]

This is not accurate at all… Celibacy was not “added” later, it’s there from the get go with Christ Himself and then St. Paul as well.

It was not official church doctrine from the get go. There were many who had children in the church. Those verses you quoted only point to a suggestion not doctrine. And there is no proof that Jesus himself was not married. After all there is no mention of Jesus when he was 20, which was around the traditional age for a jew to marry.

 

[Ghosty]

Well first you say that you didn’t distingiush yourselves until much later, then you say it never really happened. Which is true? Plus, if there was no differentiation, wouldn’t Isreal be the head of the church and not Rome?

I actually didn’t contradict myself. I said that the Church didn’t distinguish itself from the contemporary Jews until much later, and that it still doesn’t distinguish itself from the pre-Messianic Jews.

Your second question shows a lack of understanding of Jewish tradition. First off, Jews don’t believe in a central authority for the faith until the Messiah comes, second, they don’t really have any idea what the central authority will manifest as conclusively; it “remains to be seen”. Currently the Jews do not have a central ruling body of faith, so they’d have nothing to govern the Church even if we still felt obligated to follow the contemporary Jews, which we don’t.

So this establishes Peter, and possibly his family line. I do not see the connection to Rome or the Catholic church as it is manifest today.

Ahhh, I assumed you had more knowledge of the history of the Papacy. My apologies, that isn’t meant as an insult. Peter died in Rome, and before dying he gave his authority to Linus, who gave it to Cletus, who gave it to Clement. The line continues unbroken up to the modern day with Benedict XVI. Check out this list of popes. Also look at the recognition of these as Peter’s successors from the Early Church.

Well what about celibacy? That was added over 1000 years after Christ, after the church began to lose a lot of land to inheritance. Seems like a convenient time to change what had been a suggestion of celibacy, into an enforced rule of celibacy. I await your inevitable reply

Actually, celibacy was practiced from the beginning. Paul was celibate, and Christ recognized the role of celibates. It later became the norm, but it’s never been the absolute rule of faith. There have always been married Catholic priests, then and today, and there have always been celibate Catholic priests, then and today. The Eastern Churches have always had a practice of ordaining married men, so you’re point is actually not as strong as you think.

And I would like to point out no clear line of succession, but I think that is a banned topic. At any rate this does not point to catholicism in any way.

There is actually a clear line of succession, and it’s not a banned topic at all. The banned topic is discussing whether or not the Chair of Peter is currently vacant, because that caused too many flame wars. See my above statement showing the very clear line of succession.

Inflyt’s arguments about Peter being a “small rock” are both weak in strength and historically incorrect, as can be seen from the links I provided. It’s a typical Protestant diversion from reality.

 

[Maranatha]

Wormwood:

It was not official church doctrine from the get go. There were many who had children in the church. Those verses you quoted only point to a suggestion not doctrine. And there is no proof that Jesus himself was not married. After all there is no mention of Jesus when he was 20, which was around the traditional age for a jew to marry.

Priestly celibacy is discipline not doctrine of the Latin Rite Church. There are other branches of the Catholic Church that do not follow this discipline. The discipline may be changed if the Latin Rite Catholic Church decrees.

 

[Wormwood]

actually didn’t contradict myself. I said that the Church didn’t distinguish itself from the contemporary Jews until much later, and that it still doesn’t distinguish itself from the pre-Messianic Jews.

Thank you for the correction.

Your second question shows a lack of understanding of Jewish tradition. First off, Jews don’t believe in a central authority for the faith until the Messiah comes, second, they don’t really have any idea what the central authority will manifest as conclusively; it “remains to be seen”.

I didn’t mean that your church would be under a central jewish authority, I just meant that isreal is the undeniable holy land.

Ahhh, I assumed you had more knowledge of the history of the Papacy. My apologies, that isn’t meant as an insult. Peter died in Rome, and before dying he gave his authority to Linus, who gave it to Cletus, who gave it to Clement.

I am almost certain that there is debate over the line of succession, but I will wait until I can find my source for this before I try to quote it.

Actually, celibacy was practiced from the beginning. Paul was celibate, and Christ recognized the role of celibates. It later became the norm, but it’s never been the absolute rule of faith.

It may have been practiced to some extent before the time in question, but it was not stronlgy emphasized until the church began to lose land. And like I said Jesus was probably married, and Paul was too was he not?

There is actually a clear line of succession, and it’s not a banned topic at all. The banned topic is discussing whether or not the Chair of Peter is currently vacant, because that caused too many flame wars.

Ok thanks. Before this week I haven’t posted here in 8-9 months and last time I was here I was told I couldn’t bring that up.

 

[Ghosty]

I didn’t mean that your church would be under a central jewish authority, I just meant that isreal is the undeniable holy land.

But it is not where Peter died, nor where he passed on his authority. The keys were not given to a plot of dirt, but to a person. Wherever Peter goes, so go the keys of authority, and he went to Rome to pass them on.

I am almost certain that there is debate over the line of succession, but I will wait until I can find my source for this before I try to quote it.

Fair enough. I assure you, though, that these debates have been settled for centuries, so it would be truly incredible if you came up with a novel, solid argument

It may have been practiced to some extent before the time in question, but it was not stronlgy emphasized until the church began to lose land. And like I said Jesus was probably married, and Paul was too was he not?

There is no indication that Jesus was married, and it has been taught from the beginning that He was not. Paul, however, explicitely states that he himself was not married. From 1 Corinthians 7:

6 This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. 7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

The Latin Church certainly made it a discipline later on, but with the express recognition that it was not a rule of doctrine at all. The other Catholic Churches continued to have a married priesthood, and the Latin Church has never forced them to do otherwise. Regardless, the celibate priesthood was actually always the norm in the Latin (Western) Church, they just clamped down harder on the rare married cases later, but again not as a matter of doctrine, and not even across the board.

Ok thanks. Before this week I haven’t posted here in 8-9 months and last time I was here I was told I couldn’t bring that up.

Interesting. It may have been a misunderstanding, but you may also have been posting along the lines of sedevacantism (vacant seat), which is a hot topic. It doesn’t have to do with historical issues, however, but rather modern ones no more than 50 years old. If you focus on examples from prior to that time, you should be ok I would think. It’s just that certain posters got very touchy about the subject and flamewars were flying left and right, so it was clamped down. The topic itself isn’t actually a hard one to deal with at all, it’s just that some folks went nuts over it on both sides, and it became a real problem. It’s unfortunate because it’s a very simple issue, and it’s one we can discuss in PMs if you feel more comfortable.

 

[inflyt]

Regarding the new versus old Israel (continued):

If a third temple is constructed and Messanic Jews are involved in the practice of the old Jewish religion because of a love of culture, God can sanctify the temple because his new law, the love of Christ and the love of thy fellow man, will be the religion recognized and blessed of God. The old Jewish law remains spiritually dead. Any temple practices would be looked upon by God as an expression of individual culture which can be freely modified as such.

 

[Church_Militant]

Wormwood:

It was not official church doctrine from the get go. There were many who had children in the church. Those verses you quoted only point to a suggestion not doctrine. And there is no proof that Jesus himself was not married. After all there is no mention of Jesus when he was 20, which was around the traditional age for a jew to marry.

It has never been “doctrine”, since doctrine can never change.

The rest of your remarks are sheer speculation on your part. You can disregard this if you want, but it indicts your interpretation. The defining point is that at the crucifixion (as well as many other places in the accounts of His public ministry) there is only his mother and cousins and disciples. A wife would’ve been there.

The passages in question do indeed show that celibacy was espoused in the New Testament as opposed to the assertions that it is unscriptural…which is bunk.
Pax tecum,

 

[Wormwood]

The rest of your remarks are sheer speculation on your part. You can disregard this if you want, but it indicts your interpretation. The defining point is that at the crucifixion (as well as many other places in the accounts of His public ministry) there is only his mother and cousins and disciples. A wife would’ve been there.

The passages in question do indeed show that celibacy was espoused in the New Testament as opposed to the assertions that it is unscriptural…which is bunk.
Pax tecum,

Well what about the other Mary? She was always there.

 

[Church_Militant]

Wormwood:

Well what about the other Mary? She was always there.

So?

 

[inflyt]

Regarding marriage:

Jesus was not married in an earthly sense, because he was not of this world (Luke 20:34, John 8:23).

As a child, Jesus testified “that I must go about my Father’s business.” (Luke 2:49) Those that are married are partially divided between caring for the things of the Lord and pleasing their spouses (1 Cor 7:33-34). Jesus only pleased the father: “for I do always those things that please him.” (John 8:29) The father testified that he was well pleased with Jesus. (Matt 12:18, Matt 17:5, Luke 3:22) He was born into the world to judge it (John 9:39) and to bear withness unto the truth (John 18:37).

During his earthly life, Jesus was espoused to only one, the church (Mark 2:19, Luke 5:34,35, John 3:39).

Every person, though they be born again into the heavenly world which is Christ’s, has remnants of the “old nature” which is of this world (against which we struggle in the Spirit). (Galations 5:17, Romans 7:14-25). While the bible does view free-will celibacy as the ideal way to serve God singularly, God also knows that the times wax more and more wicked, i.e. subversive (2 Timothy 3:13). As a healthy way to release worldly tensions created by this wickedness, God encourages marriage (1 Cor 7:19). The “latter times” error (as wickedness has increased even from the days of Paul) warned of by Paul in 1 Timothy 4 is against those that “give heed” to the “devilish doctrines” of paganism such as in the “forbidding to marry.” Since all believers are apart of one “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), traditions that would divide are damned (Romans 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10). A spouse is also an excellent source of fellowship (being originally designed for this purpose - Genesis 2:18), and the family church structure has always been the mainstay of the true church (of the apostles - Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1:2, the montanists (including Tertullian) in 200’s AD, the Leonists (starting in the 300’s AD and later becoming the Waldensians), the primitively organized reformationists (largely murdered and coerced by organized religion), and those of the modern times who stand by the Tyndale and Geneva translations and reject organized religion).

 

[Hildebrand]

Wormwood:

What verse?

Turn to Isaiah Chapter 22:22 in your bible… Or I post it:

“And I will place on his (Eli’akim) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” In the passage, God appoints Eli’akim to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Now turn to Matthew Chapter 16:18-29:

“I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In the passage, God appoints Peter to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Jesus is a King. Christ’s Kingdom was and remains the Kingdom of Heaven. Since He was leaving earth to ascend into heaven, He appointed a Steward to lead the flock in His absence. Just as in ancient Israel, when the king would leave for whatever reason, the steward would be the acting ruler and would have authority in governing the kingdom.

The duty of a Steward is NOT to stand in front of the gates of a city and hold a piece of paper letting some people in and keeping some people out. That is duty for guards. For both Peter and Eli’akim, the key(s) represented the authority to govern/rule in the place of the King.

 

[Genesis315]

For all who think Jesus was married, answer me this:

How many 30 year old guys who live with their mother are married?

 

[Wormwood]

Turn to Isaiah Chapter 22:22 in your bible… Or I post it:

“And I will place on his (Eli’akim) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” In the passage, God appoints Eli’akim to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Now turn to Matthew Chapter 16:18-29:

“I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In the passage, God appoints Peter to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Ok I see the passage…now tell me how you arrived at you interpretation of it.

Genesis315For all who think Jesus was married, answer me this:

How many 30 year old guys who live with their mother are married?

That is just speculation though, there is no reason to believe he broke the jewish tradition of the time. Certainly there is no mention of him doing that. Only statements that he has (at the time of his ministry) given up all else for the lord. How could he give up something he’s never had? Even if he was married, does that make him any less of a holy person?

 

[Hildebrand]

Wormwood:

Ok I see the passage…now tell me how you arrived at you interpretation of it.

My interpretation of it?

Holding a key or keys represent authority.

From the King James Version:

“Go, say to this steward, to Shebna… Beware, the LORD is about to take firm hold of you and hurl you away, O you mighty man… I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position… In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah… I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22) Eliakim receives the authority over the Kingdom of Judah as Steward.

“I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Rev. 1:18) Jesus is not at the gate of hell to greet those who enter hell.
This passage shows Jesus possessing authority over death and hell.

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Rev. 3:7) Once again, showing the authority of Jesus.

catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[Ghosty]

That is just speculation though, there is no reason to believe he broke the jewish tradition of the time. Certainly there is no mention of him doing that. Only statements that he has (at the time of his ministry) given up all else for the lord. How could he give up something he’s never had? Even if he was married, does that make him any less of a holy person?

Thing is, it wasn’t a clear cut Jewish tradition of the time, as the writings of Paul indicate. It was certainly a common practice, but apparently it was not an expectation as it would come to be in later times.

Now, if Jesus had been married it wouldn’t make Him less of a holy person, but the fact if He was, His buddies would have recorded it. There would be no reason whatsoever to not put down that He had a wife, or kids, or what have you. It’s not mentioned in ANY contemporary works on Jesus. In fact, it doesn’t seem to come up as an idea for a number of centuries at least, possibly upwards of a thousand years.

There was no reason then, or now, to leave out such an important part of His life and ministry, which is why things like the Da Vinci Code are so preposterous. It’s not believed precisely because there is no reason to believe it; Jewish men of the day could be celibate, as Paul indicates, and it’s not recorded that Jesus was anything but celibate. Believing that He had a wife is actually pure speculation, not the other way around.

 

[heisenburg]

Just a thought…

If I you got put in the position of CEO at a corp, and upon being hired, they said something to the effect of heres the keys, have at it. The new CEO would rightly understand that he was jsut told he was in charge…

He leaves, the keys are passed to soemone else… Not a physical set of keys, jsut a phrase to imply transfer of power and or controll.

Another example, parents go away for the weekend and tell their 16 year old son… youve got the keys to the house… dont wreck the place. Again it is a statement to indicate that the son is in charge of the house while the parents are out. He didnt mean here are my physical set of keys to the house, dont break my keys…

The example is alos in the old testiment, and then again in the new…

If you doubt that peter was in charge, look in Acts when they were arguing about whether or not circumcision was required. Who took the lead and who did they Follow… Peter… Why, because he was given the priverbial keys to the kingdom. I ebleive he even said we know who christ appointed to lead us. Not an exact quote, but that is what was meant.

I think we all get too wrapped up in what one sentance said, and forget what the over all passage was about… and that is to both side…

but back to the keys…

So why is it, that in normal everyday language, even from way back when, we understand that if some one has the keys to the place, that means they are in charge, but ONLY when we talk about the bible does this not apply…

Anyway…

Cheers

 

[inflyt]

Regarding marriage (continued):

Only through the holiness of Christ are unclean things, sinful things, the base things of the earth, made clean and holy. Therefore, the source of holiness can have no unclean desires such as for sex in marriage. Nothing can make the source of holiness clean if it has uncleaness. Jesus could not be married, such a thing is damnable heresy. The desire for the things of this world such as sex was the cause for the fall of a whole order of angels “who left their first abode” to mate with the daughters of men before the flood.

 

[Sherlock]

inflyt:

Regarding marriage (continued):

Only through the holiness of Christ are unclean things, sinful things, the base things of the earth, made clean and holy. Therefore, the source of holiness can have no unclean desires such as for sex in marriage. Nothing can make the source of holiness clean if it has uncleaness. Jesus could not be married, such a thing is damnable heresy. The desire for the things of this world such as sex was the cause for the fall of a whole order of angels “who left their first abode” to mate with the daughters of men before the flood.

I just wanted to point out that inflyt is not Catholic. The attitude regarding sex exhibited here does not, emphatically not, reflect Catholic teaching.

 

[Ghosty]

I just wanted to point out that inflyt is not Catholic. The attitude regarding sex exhibited here does not, emphatically not, reflect Catholic teaching.

That’s a polite way of saying that his view is downright heretical. Sex in marriage is not sinful, it’s a duty. Procreation is a holy thing, it is in fact the very first command God gave to humans in Genesis. It is a wonderful and beautiful thing that brings about life, it is God’s way of sharing Creation with us.

Inflyt’s view is not just non-Catholic, it is non-Biblical, bordering on objectively evil. To say that procreation in marriage, and the desire to do so, is sinful is to say that God order’s humans to sin. It’s saying that the elimination of the human race is a holy thing. Not a good position to hold, espescially for a self-proclaimed Christian.

As a side note, sex within marriage is actually a Jewish mitzvah, or holy law. To *not *have sex within marriage is a violation of their faith, and has been since the days when the Tanakh was set down. For a man to deny his wife her right (yes, her right) to sexual relations with her husband is an absolute violation of Jewish law, religious and otherwise.