Consecrated Virgin

[LilyM]

You saying that does not bother me. I do not hold the same opinion.

How was Peter, our first Pope, in a lesser state than a consecrated virgin? Is someone who enters the convent this year as a consecrated virgin in a higher state than Peter was, or Abraham, or Moses?

I cannot agree to that.

Michael

Well then you’re not agreeing with Church dogma which asserts as much - and you know the problems that entails. So your disagreement should bother you, even if it doesn’t.

You seem to be confusing the personal holiness of individuals in particular states with the objective ‘height’ (for want of a better word) of those states.

Peter, objectively, and all his successors the Popes, are in a special, unique, and yes, ‘higher’ and more authoritative, even more ‘blessed’ position than a lot of other people. So, if Peter was celibate and/or virgin as well as being Pope (and he almost certainly was celibate), would he be in a different ‘position’ again, one that has certain objective advantages over the married and/or non-virgin state. In just as the same way that the ‘state’ of being Pope has certain benefits and advantages.

Does that mean each single individual Pope or virgin is holier than the majority of other people? Of course not. But no-one can argue that the POSITION of Pope, or the state of virginity, isn’t a special and uniquely ‘high’ and ‘blessed’, or even ‘better’ position.

It is, in that all Popes (even the worst) enjoy special protection and guidance from God and the Holy Spirit. And virgins and the celibate, as Paul points out, have all sorts of advantages in being able to serve God with fewer distractions.

How much individual Popes make of these benefits is up top them. Same applies for virgins and the celibate.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You seem to be confusing the personal holiness of individuals in particular states with the objective ‘height’ (for want of a better word) of those states.

Well, Augustine made it clear that the state of holiness of a particular priest did not affect the grace of the sacraments they were instruments of God for. So I am not saying that all priests are holy because of the office they hold, nor am I saying that all lay Catholics are less holy than priests because of the office they hold.

So, what makes a state higher or lower? Being married or a consecrated virgin? I can understand some responsibilities of a bishop being higher than a priest, regardless of the personal holiness of the individual. Did God teach us higher and lower states based on marriage or celibacy?
Luke 22:24-27 "And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.:

Michael

 

[napad]

napad;2119514:

Mt 28 19_20;2119440:

Not difficult at all. In regards to:
“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent”

**I do not believe celibacy has superiority over the married state. That dogma is incorrect. **

Thank you

Now you dont think a Church Council, The Church Fathers, and a Pope are correct; so why should I bother explaining these other things? (I still say you belong in the Apologetics Forums)

But as I said I would get to your other questions,here goes :

"Was Peter, our first Pope, in a lower state, since we are told he had a mother-in-law?

No. There is no mention of his wife being alive. Else why would his mother inlaw wait on him and not with his wife.
He entered a higher state first by his baptism then by is consecration to virginity for the kingdom (read Church) of God. The consecration of virginity is the perfection the the baptismal grace. Our Lord Jesus said: ‘Their is no man greater than John the Baptist but the least in the Kingdom of God (read Church) is greater than him.’ We enter the Church by baptism becoming engrafted in to Jesus, i.e. His Mystical Body.

Was Pope Alexander VI, in a lower state, having four children outside of marriage?

No. He was still in a higher state but failing miserably. Sin does not change one’s state it only effect one’s sanctity.

Were all the Popes who were married in a lower state than the consecrated virgins of that time?

Firstly, I know of no pope married while pope. If You’d bothered to read St. Tom Aquinus the link I gave. It would have expalined to you that a marriage is invalidated if done after consecration of a vow of celibacy.

'Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?"

In this life Yes he was. As any baptised person is in a higher state than the greatest prophet John the Baptist.(see above)

You have a sever problem with your faith so you do not have a vocation to consecrated life until you can work out your dogmatic difficulties as well as, by extention issues with authority. Why are you even in this forum?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Well then you’re not agreeing with Church dogma which asserts as much - and you know the problems that entails. So your disagreement should bother you, even if it doesn’t.

What are those problems?

I believe the Apostles Creed, and thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. So disagreeing that celibacy is a higher state than marriage entails a problem? Do you think I believe in God any less, or am any less thankful for His mercy and the love of Jesus Christ for us in His passion, death, and resurrection? Do you think God loves me any less? Does it bother you that the answer is no?

Michael

The Apostles Creed
I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.

On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge
the living and the dead

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

 

[napad]

What are those problems?

I believe the Apostles Creed, and thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. So disagreeing that celibacy is a higher state than marriage entails a problem? Do you think I believe in God any less, or am any less thankful for His mercy and the love of Jesus Christ for us in His passion, death, and resurrection? Do you think God loves me any less? Does it bother you that the answer is no?

Michael

The Apostles Creed
I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.

On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge
the living and the dead

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

St. Mathew in his Gospel put it like this : ‘If your brother doen’t even listen to the Church, then treat him as a publican’ or words to that effect.

 

[LilyM]

What are those problems?

I believe the Apostles Creed, and thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. So disagreeing that celibacy is a higher state than marriage entails a problem?

It’s called denying Papal Infallibility and the unerring teaching authority (magisterium) of the Church in council - essential teachings for every faithful Catholic to hold.

What you’re doing is denying the promises of Jesus to his Church to be with it always, to guide it by the Holy Spirit until the end of time so that it teaches ALL TRUTH, that what it binds on earth is bound in heaven.

So yes, you have a huge problem. You’re giving God and the authority which He has appointed and ordained to teach his truth the big two-fingers-up. You think he’ll be happy with that?

Do you think I believe in God any less, or am any less thankful for His mercy and the love of Jesus Christ for us in His passion, death, and resurrection? Do you think God loves me any less?

Of course you do believe in God less - if you can’t believe the very words and promises of Christ to his church, then yes, absolutely.

And yes, it bothers God an awful lot that anyone ignores what Christ said to the Apostles and their successors - ‘who hears you hears me, and who hears me hears Him who sent me’.

***I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church, ***
Amen.

You’re making a mockery of both those sentences every single time you say them! You’re denying that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Church’s teaching, and you’re denying the teachings of that very church itself!

 

[napad]

Well then you’re not agreeing with Church dogma which asserts as much - and you know the problems that entails. So your disagreement should bother you, even if it doesn’t.

You seem to be confusing the personal holiness of individuals in particular states with the objective ‘height’ (for want of a better word) of those states.

Peter, objectively, and all his successors the Popes, are in a special, unique, and yes, ‘higher’ and more authoritative, even more ‘blessed’ position than a lot of other people. So, if Peter was celibate and/or virgin as well as being Pope (and he almost certainly was celibate), would he be in a different ‘position’ again, one that has certain objective advantages over the married and/or non-virgin state. In just as the same way that the ‘state’ of being Pope has certain benefits and advantages.

Does that mean each single individual Pope or virgin is holier than the majority of other people? Of course not. But no-one can argue that the POSITION of Pope, or the state of virginity, isn’t a special and uniquely ‘high’ and ‘blessed’, or even ‘better’ position.

It is, in that all Popes (even the worst) enjoy special protection and guidance from God and the Holy Spirit. And virgins and the celibate, as Paul points out, have all sorts of advantages in being able to serve God with fewer distractions.

How much individual Popes make of these benefits is up top them. Same applies for virgins and the celibate.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2119792:

napad;2119514:

Thank you

Now you dont think a Church Council, The Church Fathers, and a Pope are correct; so why should I bother explaining these other things? (I still say you belong in the Apologetics Forums)

But as I said I would get to your other questions,here goes :

No. There is no mention of his wife being alive. Else why would his mother inlaw wait on him and not with his wife.
He entered a higher state first by his baptism then by is consecration to virginity for the kingdom (read Church) of God. The consecration of virginity is the perfection the the baptismal grace. Our Lord Jesus said: ‘Their is no man greater than John the Baptist but the least in the Kingdom of God (read Church) is greater than him.’ We enter the Church by baptism becoming engrafted in to Jesus, i.e. His Mystical Body.

Thank you for answering.

We do not know whether Peter was still married when Jesus called him. And we do not know whether Peter’s wife was or was not waiting on Him. Regardless, he was married at some time, so he was not celibate. As we are told in Genesis, the two become one. God had already blessed him with a wife, so there would be nothing for him to renounce. He cannot renounce what was already given and accepted.

“The consecration of virginity is the perfection the the baptismal grace.” Where do you get this from? Catechism, document? Are you saying there is no perfection of the baptismal grace for married Catholics? Even those who are canonized saints?

Micahel

 

[napad]

It’s called denying Papal Infallibility and the unerring teaching authority (magisterium) of the Church in council - essential teachings for every faithful catholic to hold.

What you’re doing is denying the promises of Jesus to his Church to be with it always, to guide it by the Holy Spirit until the end of time so that it teaches ALL TRUTH, that what it bound on earth was bound in heaven.

So yes, you have a huge problem. You’re giving God and the authority which He has appointed and ordained to teach his truth the big two-fingers-up. You’re refusing to acknowledge that very truth itself. You think he’ll be happy with that?

Of course you do - if you can’t believe the very words and promises of Christ to his church, then yes.

You’re making a mockery of both those sentences every single time you say them! You’re denying the guiding power of the Holy Spirit in regard to the Church’s teaching, and you’re denying the teaching of that very church itself!

:crying: that was beautifully said

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You’re making a mockery of both those sentences every single time you say them! You’re denying that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Church’s teaching, and you’re denying the teachings of that very church itself!

As Mike Aquilina once told me, Jesus never promised perfection in His Church.

And we see that in ourselves, and the Apostles He chose.

My saying “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church,”
is not a mockery. I do believe in the Holy Spirit, and that He guides and inspires the Church. And I believe in the household of God, the pillar and foundation of truth, the holy Catholic Church. The fact that all of us, including the Pope, sins and confesses their sins to God, does not lessen my faith and belief in the holy Catholic Church. Are you a member of the holy Catholic Church? If yes, when you sin, does that make the holy Catholic Church less holy? Do you then refrain from affirming the Apostles Creed?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2119792:

napad;2119514:

Firstly, I know of no pope married while pope. If You’d bothered to read St. Tom Aquinus the link I gave. It would have expalined to you that a marriage is invalidated if done after consecration of a vow of celibacy.

I also know of no Pope who married while Pope. Yet there were several married Popes.

And secondly would be your answer to the question, so consider your answer up to this point partial and perhaps selective. “Were all the Popes who were married in a lower state than the consecrated virgins of that time?”

“It would have expalined to you that a marriage is invalidated if done after consecration of a vow of celibacy”
Interesting. What of those priests who asked for dispensation to marry, and married in the Church? Are they commiting fornication? Is that how God views their marriage? Did those who
What of ex-numeraries who get married in the Church, are they fornicating? Is that how God views their marriage?

Michael

 

[LilyM]

As Mike Aquilina once told me, Jesus never promised perfection in His Church.

And we see that in ourselves, and the Apostles He chose.

My saying “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church,”
is not a mockery. I do believe in the Holy Spirit, and that He guides and inspires the Church. And I believe in the household of God, the pillar and foundation of truth, the holy Catholic Church. The fact that all of us, including the Pope, sins and confesses their sins to God, does not lessen my faith and belief in the holy Catholic Church. Are you a member of the holy Catholic Church? If yes, when you sin, does that make the holy Catholic Church less holy? Do you then refrain from affirming the Apostles Creed?

Michael

No - that’s because the holiness of the Church doesn’t depend on, and isn’t related to, the sinlessness of each individual member. It’s perfectly consistent for me to believe the Church is holy even if I and the Pope are not always. Just like I can believe I am a good person in spite of occasional faults and failings.

But to believe in the Catholic church necessarily means you must believe everything that the Church binds us to believe - and that includes the Canons that church councils propose for our belief. Believing in the Church is inseparable from believing each teaching that it proposes to us.

What part of the words ‘if any man says … let him be anathema’ do you not understand? It’s essentially a sentence of excommunication! If you don’t believe you are no longer considered a member of the Church.

Think about that before you persist in saying the exact opposite of the Council of Trent.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2119792:

napad;2119514:

In this life Yes he was. As any baptised person is in a higher state than the greatest prophet John the Baptist.(see above)

This was to the question “'Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?”

So, in this life, Abraham was in a lower state than consecrated virgins? Is Abraham not baptized?

Romans 4:16 “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,”

Michael

 

[LilyM]

napad;2120046:

Mt 28 19_20;2119792:

This was to the question “'Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?”

So, in this life, Abraham was in a lower state than consecrated virgins? Is Abraham not baptized?

Romans 4:16 "For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

"

Michael

Again, you persist in equating ‘personally more/less holy’ with ‘being in a higher/lower state’. The two aren’t the same thing at all.

I can personally be holier than the Pope, but he is, objectively, in a higher state than I. Not by virtue of his celibacy, since I am celibate too, but by virtue of his office and his reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders, neither of which I posess.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2119792:

napad;2119514:

You have a sever problem with your faith so you do not have a vocation to consecrated life until you can work out your dogmatic difficulties as well as, by extention issues with authority. Why are you even in this forum?

So, by disagreeing with celibacy as a higher state, I have a problem with my faith? And by extension with authority?

Why am I on this forum? I wonder that sometimes with the responses I sometimes receive. How much the focus is on Jesus and loving one another. And if someone disagrees with celibacy, then they have such a problem? Is that what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about? God loves them any less, even though they thank Him for His love and mercy?

Michael

 

[LilyM]

napad;2120046:

Mt 28 19_20;2119792:

So, by disagreeing with celibacy as a higher state, I have a problem with my faith? And by extension with authority?

Why am I on this forum? I wonder that sometimes with the responses I sometimes receive. How much the focus is on Jesus and loving one another. And if someone disagrees with celibacy, then they have such a problem? Is that what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about? God loves them any less, even though they thank Him for His love and mercy?

Michael

You’re definitely not very thankful that Christ left behind him a Church with the power and authority to make his teaching known, and that he continues to guide it and us.

He loved, sure, but he also criticised and admonished and taught hard teachings when that was required too.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

St. Mathew in his Gospel put it like this : ‘If your brother doen’t even listen to the Church, then treat him as a publican’ or words to that effect.

Are you referring to 2 Thess 3:14-15. The passage in Matthew about tradition is: Mt 15:5-6 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

2 Thess 3:14-15 "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person (and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet (do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Notice 2 Thes 3:6? Has the Church done that with the sex abuse scandal? “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.”

Which reminds me of 1 Tim 5:19-20 and how well that has been applied to the sex scandal: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.”

Michael

 

[LilyM]

Are you referring to 2 Thess 3:14-15. The passage in Matthew about tradition is: Mt 15:5-6 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

2 Thess 3:14-15 "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person (and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet (do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Notice 2 Thes 3:6? Has the Church done that with the sex abuse scandal? “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.”

Which reminds me of 1 Tim 5:19-20 and how well that has been applied to the sex scandal: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.”

Michael

And what precisely does your example have to do with whether or not you are obligated to accept Church teaching?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Peter, objectively, and all his successors the Popes, are in a special, unique, and yes, ‘higher’ and more authoritative, even more ‘blessed’ position than a lot of other people. So, if Peter was celibate and/or virgin as well as being Pope (and he almost certainly was celibate), would he be in a different ‘position’ again, one that has certain objective advantages over the married and/or non-virgin state. In just as the same way that the ‘state’ of being Pope has certain benefits and advantages.

Does that mean each single individual Pope or virgin is holier than the majority of other people? Of course not. But no-one can argue that the POSITION of Pope, or the state of virginity, isn’t a special and uniquely ‘high’ and ‘blessed’, or even ‘better’ position.

“But no-one can argue that the POSITION of Pope, or the state of virginity, isn’t a special and uniquely ‘high’ and ‘blessed’, or even ‘better’ position.”
Is that not what the dogma that consecrated virginity is a higher state than marriage is doing in the case of the reality of Popes that were married? They were married, so in a lower state, and at the same time Pope. So the dogma argues this.

“So, if Peter was celibate and/or virgin as well as being Pope (and he almost certainly was celibate)”
Again, Peter was married, and not a virgin. And Scripture makes a point of stating that Peter had a mother-in-law. Why? If someone was married, are they still a virgin? God blessed Peter with the gift of a wife, and he accepted that gift of marriage, the two became one. Did Peter later renounce that gift, and the one became two?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

If you don’t believe you are no longer considered a member of the Church.

Think about that before you persist in saying the exact opposite of the Council of Trent.

So, I believe all the Apostles Creed affirms, and disagree with celibacy as a higher state. And that makes me no longer considered a member of the Church?

Think about what you assert and whether it is consistent with the Word of God:
Romans 10:8-13 "But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

Nothing there about having to believe marriage or celibacy is a higher state than the other. Is the Catholic Gospel about Jesus atoning for our sins, or believing in celibacy as a higher state?

Michael