Gates of hell question

[Church_Militant]

Fredricks:

I have a problem with it being required when it conflicts with scripture. The Bible never teaches that you must

do this. But you guys require it of your priests. Despite the fact, that the great Apostle Peter did it. it was good enough for him but you REQUIRE IT. The Bible says quite the opposite.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)

From the lips of Christ Himself!

I have to assume that Jesus and Paul will do?

 

[Fredricks]

Does the Bible teach you must be celibate to be a bishop or elder?
Can a Catholic priest get married(I worded that question intentionally)

 

[Fredricks]

Church Militant:

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)

From the lips of Christ Himself!

I have to assume that Jesus and Paul will do?

not applicable, you require it

 

[Church_Militant]

Fredricks:

Does the Bible teach you must be celibate to be a bishop or elder?
Can a Catholic priest get married(I worded that question intentionally)

Whether it is better to obey Christ or men, you tell me.

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

Hmmm. . .I’m not sure what you are getting at?

Yes, I do acknowledge that when St. Paul refers to “tradition” in a positive manner that it is referencing “traditions” which have been “delivered” (1 Cor. 11:2) “taught” (2 Thess. 2:15) or otherwise “received” (2 Thess. 3:6). But nowhere does he say that all ‘traditions” which have been “delivered,” “taught,” or otherwise “received” must be explicit in Scripture or written down somewhere in document form during the Apostolic age.

The point of the Church’s teaching on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is that while the Bible is wholly true, it does not contain the whole truth. That is the function of the Word—which is found in the full deposit of faith, Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. This of course, was the point of Awful’s thread. . .

And. . .I would offer that while there may not be a reference to a “tradition that will be forthcoming” there is no passage of Scripture that explicitly states that ALL viable teaching had been completely delivered at the time of St. Paul’s 1st letter to the Corithinans, for instance. HENCE, he sends them a second letter!

And. …it would be hard to gather from the Scriptures ALONE a specific listing of all the pertinent “traditions” from 30 AD to 65 AD as St. Paul indicates that some were not written at all (i.e., “by word of mouth,” 2 Thess. 2:15).

What I am getting at is what you just agreed with me on. Tradition is past tense. It must be proven to come from the apostles. I am not opposed to all traditions. I have never said that at all. i asked for proof of them. I am not Catholic, if you have traditions that came from Jesus or the Apostles, that you knew about, I would think you would WANT me to have them. Instead, you refuse to, or cannot, tell me what they are. Despite the fact, historians clearly show, Catholic and Protestant, that many of your beliefs DID develop later.

 

[JaneFrances]

Eden:

JaneFrances - I was just trying to get you another clue for your notebook.

Wait, wait. . .I need to sharpen my crayon to color in the miter!

 

[Fredricks]

Church Militant:

Whether it is better to obey Christ or men, you tell me.

Christ does not require his bishops to be unmarried. Are you saying he requires it? are you saying that Paul is not inspired when he writes about this? Are you saying that certain parts of the Bible are more important than others? Are you contending the Bible has contradictions? Are you denying you cannot get married and remain a priest?

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

Does the Bible teach you must be celibate to be a bishop or elder?

No, but then again the qeustion is irrelevant. Not even protestants go by the bible for all their practices. The church teaches celibacy for priests is a disciple, not a biblical requirement.

Can a Catholic priest get married(I worded that question intentionally)

In the latin rite, no.

 

[Fredricks]

SemperJase:

No, but then again the qeustion is irrelevant. Not even protestants go by the bible for all their practices. The church teaches celibacy for priests is a disciple, not a biblical requirement.

In the latin rite, no.

A disciple that contradicts the Bible. Clearly

**1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, **

I thought you could not contradict scripture with your teachings. Because people you consider not the “Church” do it, that is your excuse?

 

[Batjacboy]

Fredricks:

A disciple that contradicts the Bible. Clearly

**1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, **

I thought you could not contradict scripture with your teachings. Because people you consider not the “Church” do it, that is your excuse?

Fredricks,

Please quote the passage in context:

“It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? 6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

He’s talking about the good qualities in a bishop, not that he has to be married. “Of one wife” does not mean that every bishop should have a wife (for Paul himself was unmarried, as were some of the Apostles), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop who had been married more than once.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

What I am getting at is what you just agreed with me on. Tradition is past tense. It must be proven to come from the apostles. I am not opposed to all traditions. I have never said that at all. i asked for proof of them. I am not Catholic, if you have traditions that came from Jesus or the Apostles, that you knew about, I would think you would WANT me to have them. Instead, you refuse to, or cannot, tell me what they are. Despite the fact, historians clearly show, Catholic and Protestant, that many of your beliefs DID develop later.

You are confusing the seeds with the development, Fred.

Take Sacred Scripture, for instance. The canon of the New Testament is a product of Sacred Tradition. Now, just because the canon DEVELOPED, does that mean that it wasn’t a tradition that came from Jesus or the Apostles? Of course not. Development is not synonymous with wrongness!

I agree, all Tradition (that which is from Christ and his Apostles) is derived in the PAST TENSE (i.e., from teachings during the Apostolic age), but that does not mean that our understanding of certain teachings are somehow immune from development.

The only absolute “proof” that you accept is Biblical proof (per your own admission). And the Church’s standard of “proof” is entirely different and more biblical.

I have not refused to tell you what Tradition is. Nor have I flinched from defending a specific Tradition. I will not, however, provide for you a listing of Sacred Tradition. This is your job–you are challenging us. Bring us one. . .we’ll trace it back for you. How’s that?

 

[Church_Militant]

Fredricks:

not applicable, you require it

So it is unrighteous for these men to make that committment for the kingdom of God of their own free will?

Why are there so pitifully few celibate n-C ministers, when Jesus plainly says it is the best way, and St. Paul reinforces that in his letter?

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Are you denying you cannot get married and remain a priest?

Actually, it is my understanding that once one is ordained to the priesthood, that ordination remains in spite of his disobedience to the discipline of celibacy (assuming he is not already married) and his choice to not honor his freely chosen vow. Whether he were to “get married” or engage in some other sinful act of sexual relations, his ordination remains intact.

Now, as a result of such disobedience, it is entirely possible, probable, and proper that disciplinary measures would be taken. That is, he could be relieved of certain responsibilities to the Church, by the authority of his Bishop, in the event that he should “get married.” Obviously, issues regarding other sexual sins opposing celibacy are less easily disciplined (due to their often less public nature), though entirely within the bounds of severe censure.

Also, it may have already been said. . .Priestly celibacy is not a big “T” Tradition.

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

A disciple that contradicts the Bible. Clearly

**1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, **

I thought you could not contradict scripture with your teachings. Because people you consider not the “Church” do it, that is your excuse?

I actually meant to say a discipline. Oops.

Now when Paul was writing to Timothy, do you think he forgot what he had written to the Corinthians about seven years earlier?

1 Cor 7:8
Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

So it would seem that according to Paul catholics agree with scripture, being celibate is best.

But clearly your interpretation is different. So how do you explain 1 Cor 7?

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

Christ is the way to truth!Truthfully, who says that kind of stuff except the JW’s, Mormons(I do not know that they even do that, I m not sure) and I suppose Church of Christ.

Then your version of the church of Christ is fraught with error, contradiction, disagreement, confusion and misdirection for the faithful. There’s just way too little on which you folks agree to make this claim stand up to reality.

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

Jane
Every time tradition is referred to in a postive manner in the NT, do you agree the context clearly points to a teaching they have received prior to the letter. In other words, a tradition that came from 30 AD to possibly 65 AD. Do you ever see a referrence to tradition that will be forthcoming?

In that case, then the only valid scripture for one of these churches receiving such a letter would be that letter itself, and any other scripture they may have been lucky to come across in some other manner. Which means that each local church would’ve had to know that the letter they had received was scripture. How would they have known, considering there was nobody around to set a universal standard for what belonged in scripture?

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

No. The system we follow is what the Bible teaches, using only the terms found in scripture. I am going to have to use my verses, I know.

Then your system came along awfully late in the game, considering how long local churches in union with the universal church didn’t have a complete canon from which to draw your supposed Biblical system. So, with the Bible as the basis for everything a Christian needs, these folks, by your standard, were severely lacking in direction. Unless they had an infallible Sacred Tradition, eh?

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

A disciple that contradicts the Bible. Clearly

**1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, **

I thought you could not contradict scripture with your teachings. Because people you consider not the “Church” do it, that is your excuse?

In other words, your tradition FORCES bishops to marry? And if their spouses die, must they re-marry?

 

[Fredricks]

djrakowski:

Then your system came along awfully late in the game, considering how long local churches in union with the universal church didn’t have a complete canon from which to draw your supposed Biblical system. So, with the Bible as the basis for everything a Christian needs, these folks, by your standard, were severely lacking in direction. Unless they had an infallible Sacred Tradition, eh?

Are you suggesting that the church used a system early on that differed from the one in the Bible?! What does this say about your particular belief in the accuracy of the Bible??

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Can a Catholic priest get married(I worded that question intentionally)

Eastern Catholic priests can be ordained if they are already married. There are some cases of Anglican priests who convert and seek ordination in the Latin Catholic Church–some are married and it is allowed.