D
distracted
Guest
because of the info in my last post
i would say it is perverted NOT to be celibate…
i would say it is perverted NOT to be celibate…
- Status
D
distracted
Guest
amazes me that people put validity on the rantings of a virtual madman…
a *human *…
T
Tietjen
Guest
I find the fact that you use such uncharitable statements as, “Do you care to dance around this one” disturbing. You obviously are simply here to win arguments and do not have Christ as the focus of your heart. Know this…Yes scripture speaks of benefits to being free from family obligations in order to serve the Kingdom of God. But forbidding marriage is also addressed. Scripture calls it a doctrine of demons:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3
Does this passage sound familiar? Do you care to dance around this one?
The Catholic Church DOES NOT FORBID marriage. It is voluntary for those men and women who wish to serve the Church and God. Those who do not wish to take the vow of celibacy may still choose to serve in another capacity. Voluntarily taking a vow of celibacy is a very reverent thing and YOU are attempting to make it out as an evil act. Of course we knew this would happen because the Bible also says that in the last days people (like you) would call good evil and evil good. To make matters worse, you are attempting to use the Bible to do it when the Bible clearly states that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God IS virtuous. How dare you! This is a perfect example of Protestantism. Lie about things you disagree with and PROTEST against God’s Church.
N
Nominefili
Guest
The Pope is human too right?
A
atg2
Guest
i’ve heard it said that; sexuality is a human need & if folk don’t masturbate or have intercourse;they’ll have wet dreams.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Celibacy doesn’t lead to perversion. It can have particular struggles associated with it, just like marriage, and if they aren’t handled well it may lead to problems.
Most Protestants do not really require their ministers to marry, though in some groups it seems to be preferred. It is more that they do not think that it should be disallowed. In a way, this is not so different than Catholicism, which also says that it is possible to have married priests, and some parts of the Catholic Church do. Latin Catholics don’t allow it because they think there are strong advantages to priests being unmarried. Many Protestants would say the Bible clearly allows married clergy, so to absolutely dis-allow it is umbilical and taking on authority in an inappropriate way.
My own tradition, Anglicanism, allows priests to marry, but also has a long tradition of celibacy as well. This is especially true among academic priests. Being married or not is just not considered among the most important things.
Among some groups there seems to be more of a feeling that it is better for a pastor to be a family man. I think such groups have an emphasis on fulfilling ones vocation through family; it is seen as a way for the pastor to have support, and also relate to his flock more closely. As well, in such groups the pastors wife has traditionally played an important role. And finally, unfortunately some groups do seem to think that it is a barrier against sexual sin by the pastor, or somehow proof that he isn’t gay.
Most Protestants do not really require their ministers to marry, though in some groups it seems to be preferred. It is more that they do not think that it should be disallowed. In a way, this is not so different than Catholicism, which also says that it is possible to have married priests, and some parts of the Catholic Church do. Latin Catholics don’t allow it because they think there are strong advantages to priests being unmarried. Many Protestants would say the Bible clearly allows married clergy, so to absolutely dis-allow it is umbilical and taking on authority in an inappropriate way.
My own tradition, Anglicanism, allows priests to marry, but also has a long tradition of celibacy as well. This is especially true among academic priests. Being married or not is just not considered among the most important things.
Among some groups there seems to be more of a feeling that it is better for a pastor to be a family man. I think such groups have an emphasis on fulfilling ones vocation through family; it is seen as a way for the pastor to have support, and also relate to his flock more closely. As well, in such groups the pastors wife has traditionally played an important role. And finally, unfortunately some groups do seem to think that it is a barrier against sexual sin by the pastor, or somehow proof that he isn’t gay.
D
distracted
Guest
i agree with everything you say here…I find the fact that you use such uncharitable statements as, “Do you care to dance around this one” disturbing. You obviously are simply here to win arguments and do not have Christ as the focus of your heart. Know this…
The Catholic Church DOES NOT FORBID marriage. It is voluntary for those men and women who wish to serve the Church and God. Those who do not wish to take the vow of celibacy may still choose to serve in another capacity. Voluntarily taking a vow of celibacy is a very reverent thing and YOU are attempting to make it out as an evil act. Of course we knew this would happen because the Bible also says that in the last days people (like you) would call good evil and evil good. To make matters worse, you are attempting to use the Bible to do it when the Bible clearly states that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God IS virtuous. How dare you! This is a perfect example of Protestantism. Lie about things you disagree with and PROTEST against God’s Church.
but if i could be honest… the way you say it is also… uh … disturbing because it shows a lack of charity…
just concerned
D
distracted
Guest
the pope lives in the Presence of Christ.
Luther LEFT the Real Presence…
and it shows in his writings!!!
D
distracted
Guest
I have reasons for not saying on CAF how long i have been celibate but it has been a very LONG time, far longer than most “young-ish” people go these days…
and i haven’t had any wet dreams lately…
but even if i do, that is not a sin because it is not my fault…
so what is the point you’re trying to make???
do you think this is a mortal sin as the RCC teaches (at least it is mortal in some [well-defined by the catechism] situations)
T
TLM08
Guest
Point taken about the “dance” comment. But that doesn’t change the fact that Catholic priests are forbidden to marry. It is not voluntary. To be a priest the celibacy vow is mandatory. The truth can be very offensive. Don’t blame me for delivering it. Scripture says that an overseer should be a married man with children and calls forbidding marrige a doctrine of demons. I respect your desire to defend the church but there is simply no way to spin this otherwise.I find the fact that you use such uncharitable statements as, “Do you care to dance around this one” disturbing. You obviously are simply here to win arguments and do not have Christ as the focus of your heart. Know this…
The Catholic Church DOES NOT FORBID marriage. It is voluntary for those men and women who wish to serve the Church and God. Those who do not wish to take the vow of celibacy may still choose to serve in another capacity. Voluntarily taking a vow of celibacy is a very reverent thing and YOU are attempting to make it out as an evil act. Of course we knew this would happen because the Bible also says that in the last days people (like you) would call good evil and evil good. To make matters worse, you are attempting to use the Bible to do it when the Bible clearly states that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God IS virtuous. How dare you! This is a perfect example of Protestantism. Lie about things you disagree with and PROTEST against God’s Church.
C
Canto
Guest
123, 123, now turn, pivot, dosey doeYes scripture speaks of benefits to being free from family obligations in order to serve the Kingdom of God. But forbidding marriage is also addressed. Scripture calls it a doctrine of demons:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3
Does this passage sound familiar? Do you care to dance around this one?
from the Haydock commentary
Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, etc. Here says St. Chrysostom[1] are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, etc. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, etc. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, etc. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life; or when the Church forbids persons to eat flesh in Lent, or on fasting-days, unless their health require it. We hold that marriage in itself is not only honourable, but a sacrament of divine institution. We believe and profess that the same only true God is the author of all creatures which are good of themselves; that all eatables are to be eaten with thanksgiving, and none of them to be rejected, as coming from the author of evil. When we condemn priests for marrying, it is for breaking their vows and promises made to God of living unmarried, and of leading a more perfect life; we condemn them with the Scripture, which teaches us that vows made are to be kept; with St. Paul, who in the next chap. (ver. 12) teaches us, that they who break such vows incur their damnation. When the Church, which we are commanded to obey, enjoins abstinence from flesh, or puts a restraint as to the times of eating on days of humiliation and fasting, it is by way of self-denial and mortification: so that it is not the meats, but the transgression of the precept, that on such occasions defiles the consciences of the transgressors. “You will object, (says St. Chrysostom) that we hinder persons from marrying; God forbid,” etc. St. Augustine, (lib. 30. cont. Faustum. chap. vi.) “You see (says he) the great difference in abstaining from meats for mortification sake, and as if God was not the author of them.” We may observe that God, in the law of Moses, prohibited swine’s flesh and many other eatables; and that even the apostles, in the Council of Jerusalem, forbad the Christians, (at least about Antioch) to eat at that time blood and things strangled; not that they were bad of themselves, as the Manicheans pretended. (Witham)
St. Paul here speaks of the Gnostics and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat, because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle: whereas the Church of God so far from condemning marriage, holds it to be a holy sacrament, and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever, in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kinds of diet proper for days of fasting and penance. (Challoner)
We may see in the earliest ages [centuries] of Christianity, that some of the most infamous and impure heretics that ever went out of the Church, condemned all marriage as unlawful, at the same time allowing the most unheard of abominations: men without religion, without faith, without modesty, without honour. See St. Clement, lib. 3. Strom.
T
TLM08
Guest
Haydock’s is commentary. It is not the inspired Word of God. These are the teachings of men.123, 123, now turn, pivot, dosey doe
from the Haydock commentary
Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, etc. Here says St. Chrysostom[1] are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, etc. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, etc. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, etc. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life; or when the Church forbids persons to eat flesh in Lent, or on fasting-days, unless their health require it. We hold that marriage in itself is not only honourable, but a sacrament of divine institution. We believe and profess that the same only true God is the author of all creatures which are good of themselves; that all eatables are to be eaten with thanksgiving, and none of them to be rejected, as coming from the author of evil. When we condemn priests for marrying, it is for breaking their vows and promises made to God of living unmarried, and of leading a more perfect life; we condemn them with the Scripture, which teaches us that vows made are to be kept; with St. Paul, who in the next chap. (ver. 12) teaches us, that they who break such vows incur their damnation. When the Church, which we are commanded to obey, enjoins abstinence from flesh, or puts a restraint as to the times of eating on days of humiliation and fasting, it is by way of self-denial and mortification: so that it is not the meats, but the transgression of the precept, that on such occasions defiles the consciences of the transgressors. “You will object, (says St. Chrysostom) that we hinder persons from marrying; God forbid,” etc. St. Augustine, (lib. 30. cont. Faustum. chap. vi.) “You see (says he) the great difference in abstaining from meats for mortification sake, and as if God was not the author of them.” We may observe that God, in the law of Moses, prohibited swine’s flesh and many other eatables; and that even the apostles, in the Council of Jerusalem, forbad the Christians, (at least about Antioch) to eat at that time blood and things strangled; not that they were bad of themselves, as the Manicheans pretended. (Witham)
St. Paul here speaks of the Gnostics and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat, because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle: whereas the Church of God so far from condemning marriage, holds it to be a holy sacrament, and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever, in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kinds of diet proper for days of fasting and penance. (Challoner)
We may see in the earliest ages [centuries] of Christianity, that some of the most infamous and impure heretics that ever went out of the Church, condemned all marriage as unlawful, at the same time allowing the most unheard of abominations: men without religion, without faith, without modesty, without honour. See St. Clement, lib. 3. Strom.
C
Canto
Guest
*Men *[of the Catholic Church] picked the 27 books of the New Testament - if not then who??? The Bible doesn’t give us the listHaydock’s is commentary. It is not the inspired Word of God. These are the teachings of men.
This is an interpretation in it’s historical context
Your’s is an interpretation too
With what authority do you proclaim your interp to be the correct one
L
Luke65
Guest
Poor deluded soul. As you know, the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. In fact, the Catholic Church made marriage a Sacrament, and calls it a holy vocation, and She blesses it. And She protects marriage from those who would pervert this blessing of God according to the traditions of men, so that people do not live in adultery and go to Hell.
Our Lord Jesus said that those who can accept His calling them to a vow of celibacy should accept it; and priests and nuns, and others do just that. And who are you to judge somebody else’s servant? If they volunteer to serve God and His people, who are you to speak? If Christ wants His soldiers to serve Him and not be distracted with “civilian affairs”, what business is it of yours?
And did the thought ever occur to you that when St. Paul said that bishops should have “one wife” the Church was made up of all converts? Most of the men were already married! Where was he going to find enough unmarried men to lead the flocks who were also “above reproach… temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money… and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil”?
By the way, did you happen to notice that St. Paul prophesied that these “doctrines of demons” would come in “the latter times”? Open your eyes!
“If homosexuals can’t get married, nobody can!”
“Meat is murder!”
(Edited) They pretend that they’re moral while they call good evil and evil good.
T
TLM08
Guest
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matthew 7:15-20
%between% New revelations in Ireland are stunning. It’s amazing that this isn’t getting much press in the United States. Perhaps it is because we have become numb to it from all of the problems here. If catholic priests were married men there is no way this could have occurred. There is no way that this could have happened without this perverted sickness being institutionally accepted.
Catholic writer Randy Engel has published her comprehensive research into this ritualistic, institutional sexual and physical abuse within the church. False religion can never subdue the flesh.
C
Canto
Guest
Does that mean we won’t be saved (burnt) if our faith does not bear good fruit? (off topic I know)
"The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests” thus concluded a 2002 study by Hofstra University scholar Charol Shakeshaft.
An Associated Press investigation found that 485 “moral misconduct” charges were brought against New York State teachers between 2001 and 2005, most involving sex. By contrast, new charges of sex abuse against Catholic priests in New York numbered less than 10 during that same five-year period.
Scripture plainly says to eat Christ’s flesh - do you?
Scripture says the Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth. y/n???
There are priests (presbyters), bishops and deacons in the Bible - does your church have these ???
The Church is the greatest defender (in my op) of marriage. Did you know there are married priests in the Eastern rites, and married converts in the Latin rite? Priests don’t have time for a family, they serve the family of God.
Do most non-Catholics consider marriage a sacrament, oppose divorce? 1 Cor 7:10 But to those who are married, not I, but the Lord, commandes that the wife depart not from her husband.
1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about wordly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided (1 Corinthians 7:32-34) and he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (1 Corinthians 7:38).
It seems to me a celibate priest/bishop is anxious about the affairs of the Lord and will do better.
If a bishop must be married (taken out of context) does that mean a non married person cannot be a bishop?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think perhaps people are missing what is meant by those posters who think it is unjust in some way to forbid priests to marry.
In general, I think you would find that those people in no way oppose someone taking a vow of celibacy if that is what they are called to, for example in the monastic life. And a priest could also choose to do this.
But, the Catholic Church teaches that celibacy IS NOT essentially to priesthood. One can be a married priest in the Catholic Church, just not normally in the Latin rite. Celibacy and the priesthood are not intrinsically connected, according to the CCs own teachings.
So, they posters are questioning whether it is right for the Church to demand this particular additional thing, which is not intrinsic to the priesthood itself? It seems clear that there are some requirements the Church adds which are positive - to have an appropriate level of education for example. Other things would be clearly wrong - all priests must be of European descent, for example. Others might be useless and silly - no one with freckles.
So it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable to ask if the additional requirement of celibacy is a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing.
To me it comes down to this. Some people are called to celibacy (whether they want to be or not.) Some people are called to the priesthood. I am sure that the two do not always overlap - if they did than there would not be reason to have married priests ever, and that is not what the Catholic Church, does, or the ancient Church did. I think it is probably more negative than positive to have this additional requirement, perhaps even a bit inappropriate, and likely shuts out people who may have a real calling to the priesthood but have also been called to marriage.
I think having celibate priestly orders that are strong would be an excellent thing, because celibacy does have certain great strengths. And if the Church did ever decide to make a change on this there would be a variety of practical issues since the system is not set up for families now.
In general, I think you would find that those people in no way oppose someone taking a vow of celibacy if that is what they are called to, for example in the monastic life. And a priest could also choose to do this.
But, the Catholic Church teaches that celibacy IS NOT essentially to priesthood. One can be a married priest in the Catholic Church, just not normally in the Latin rite. Celibacy and the priesthood are not intrinsically connected, according to the CCs own teachings.
So, they posters are questioning whether it is right for the Church to demand this particular additional thing, which is not intrinsic to the priesthood itself? It seems clear that there are some requirements the Church adds which are positive - to have an appropriate level of education for example. Other things would be clearly wrong - all priests must be of European descent, for example. Others might be useless and silly - no one with freckles.
So it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable to ask if the additional requirement of celibacy is a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing.
To me it comes down to this. Some people are called to celibacy (whether they want to be or not.) Some people are called to the priesthood. I am sure that the two do not always overlap - if they did than there would not be reason to have married priests ever, and that is not what the Catholic Church, does, or the ancient Church did. I think it is probably more negative than positive to have this additional requirement, perhaps even a bit inappropriate, and likely shuts out people who may have a real calling to the priesthood but have also been called to marriage.
I think having celibate priestly orders that are strong would be an excellent thing, because celibacy does have certain great strengths. And if the Church did ever decide to make a change on this there would be a variety of practical issues since the system is not set up for families now.
T
Tietjen
Guest
It’s called rightous anger. I doubt seriously when Christ drove the money changers from the temple he said, “Come on guys, let’s take this somewhere else, please… okay?” Some times distracted, anger and angry words are not uncharitable IF that is the only way one can be heard. TLM08 wasn’t responding well to “nice” responses but was in fact telling posters that they were “dancing around” the issue. He simply is unable to see the Truth. Perhaps if we all pray that the Holy Spirit will give him the ability to understand Scripture… Peace and God bless.
M
manualman
Guest
TLM,
Your confidence in your faith is admirable, but I must ask what exactly you think you are accomplishing here? You cannot both persuade and belittle at the same time, surely you know that.
Your posts are classic of young (or at least fairly newly converted) evangelicals, but rather shallow in terms of how much you’ve pondered the full range of scripture and comprehended how APPARENTLY contradictory ideas can both be true.
Fact: Jesus gave the apostles authority to bind or loose.
Fact: St. Paul clearly points out how beneficial it is to ministry to not have the duties of being a husband as well.
Fact: Nobody gets drafted into the catholic priesthood.
It’s pretty easy to see that nobody is forced to remain celibate, nor is there any violation of Scripture involved when the bishops uses the disciplinary authority Jesus gave to them via the apostles.
Your confidence in your faith is admirable, but I must ask what exactly you think you are accomplishing here? You cannot both persuade and belittle at the same time, surely you know that.
Your posts are classic of young (or at least fairly newly converted) evangelicals, but rather shallow in terms of how much you’ve pondered the full range of scripture and comprehended how APPARENTLY contradictory ideas can both be true.
Fact: Jesus gave the apostles authority to bind or loose.
Fact: St. Paul clearly points out how beneficial it is to ministry to not have the duties of being a husband as well.
Fact: Nobody gets drafted into the catholic priesthood.
It’s pretty easy to see that nobody is forced to remain celibate, nor is there any violation of Scripture involved when the bishops uses the disciplinary authority Jesus gave to them via the apostles.
R
Robster7
Guest
Celibacy in and of itself does not cause child molestation.
Many people not ordinarily celibate may be so temporarily due to circumstances (i.e., absence or lack of partner etc.).
Normal people who have strong sexual desires and no partner with whom to satisfy them do not immediately opt for perverse outlets.
Pedophiles generally are abnormal people with perverse sexual desires, often originating in molestation they suffered as children.
Many people not ordinarily celibate may be so temporarily due to circumstances (i.e., absence or lack of partner etc.).
Normal people who have strong sexual desires and no partner with whom to satisfy them do not immediately opt for perverse outlets.
Pedophiles generally are abnormal people with perverse sexual desires, often originating in molestation they suffered as children.
- Status