Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[CentralFLJames]

Where is this in Paul’s writing?

**1 Cor 7:1
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. **

But not just Paul - Jesus and other apostles felt the same way.

By your own coincidental critera a number of biblical teachings imply gnosticism among the apostles and Jesus himself. Clearly your standard is wrong or Jesus and the apostles had Gnostic influences as well. If you still want to associate celibacy with Gnostic influence then we can conclude only that this aspect of Gnosticism is neither sinful nor wrong in anyway. But if we do that, then by your reasoning we must also conclude that the crowning glory of heaven is the attainment of the Gnostic standard since no one in heaven marries and enjoys the pleasures of the flesh nor sins. And nothing in heaven is impure. Strange that intercourse is implicated with impurity?From there we might consider that in heaven all is pure and undefiled and there is no sin. Shall we then expand the reasoning to become suspicious of the apostles too? Might it be that a bunch of henpecked fishermen weary of nagging wives who demanded their attention in the customary spousal obligations might have invented the whole Christian Gospel as a fish story to escape from having to be around them and to live with them all day? This sentiment of freedom from life’s obligations and the lure of the treasurers of the sea does sound very much like fishermen to me.

You MUST admit that if heaven is the goal then we only attain purity and bliss by escaping the lawful bonds of marriage and the carnal pleasures (or obligations if the beauty and charm is fading) therein.

So pick your poison - Fish Stories or Gnostic influenced Apostles, Jesus, and Heaven too.
Apparently even the Genesis author had Gnostic influences as well since it is only in heaven that a women gets off the hook too and can escape the shackling urges for her husband and replace those with love of God.

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior]
Proof that celibacy was condoned and recommended in scripture:
Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. **Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom. **

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, Catholic priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage).

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore,** this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop**.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church’s practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God’s covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children

Thus you see the entire bible has a consistent theme from cover to cover - consecrate oneself to God and don’t chase after the pleasures and comforts of the flesh if one has the discipline to do this. One “can do better” by not being married as long as one can over come the burning desires and not cave into lustful preoccupations which make it “not good for the man to be alone.” Purity is paramount and masturbation is not an option either (ref: Onan in Gen 38:9, Matt 5:28-29, Eph 5:3,1Th 4:2-8, Ro 6:13, Leviticus 15:16-18, Leviticus 22:4, Gal 5:22, 2 Peter 1, Mark 7:21-23, 2 Timothy 3:1-4 ). :blush

For those who find they need to marry to escape the urges of the flesh they must consecrate one to the other to become ONE flesh so as not to defile each other in imperfect unitoon and thereby become impure. Thus the concept of UNITY and purity in marriage through monogamous and chaste commitment - a lessor form of purity than virginal living. Some married Christians later discover that they can live as brother and sister and attain a higher chastity within marriage. Gnostic or Christian?

The only conclusion a Christian believer can make is that Gnosticism got its ideas on purity and celibacy from the same place the apostles did - from the Jews and therefor from God. This is not to be surprising of partial truth faiths. This same principal is seen in neo-Christianity and it is why Protestants have even a chance of salvation through the partial truth of the purity of cleansing of baptism. But the idea is progressive sanctification and holiness so as to become ONE with God and we can do this in marriage if we are also ONE with each other.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

James,
In gnostic belief, marriage is forbidden. In Catholicism, marriage is forbidden to all who serve as priests, bishops, or who take holy orders. In scripture, one who serves as elder/bishop/presbyter (priest?) is to be the husband of one wife and have obedient children. Hebrews 13:4 – “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

I would be interested in sources in sacred tradition that relate marriage by priests, as a sin.

Here are your statements reflecting gnostic Catholic belief and your comments gnosticism reading back into some passages of sacred scripture:

“…this aspect of Gnosticism is neither sinful nor wrong in anyway.”
“Strange that intercourse is implicated with impurity?”
“You MUST admit that if heaven is the goal then we only attain purity and bliss by escaping the lawful bonds of marriage…”
“To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, Catholic priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage.”
1 Tim. 3:2 – “Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once… this verse refers to bishops that were widowers.”
1 Tim. 4:3 – “Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good.”
“Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).”
2 Tim. 2:3-4 – “Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.”
Rev. 14:4 – “unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.”
“Thus the concept of UNITY and purity in marriage through monogamous and chaste commitment - a lessor form of purity than virginal living. Some married Christians later discover that they can live as brother and sister and attain a higher chastity within marriage. Gnostic or Christian?”
“But the idea is progressive sanctification and holiness so as to become ONE with God and we can do this in marriage if we are also ONE with each other.”

In gnosticism, marriage is forbidden to the psychic level of progressive holiness because psychics spend their time in contemplation to achieve or maintain their unity with God. This follows also the Orphic, Pythagorean, Platonic ideas of ascetic celibate life.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

James

Rev.14:4 “These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure.”

This is referring to sexual immorality, fornication and adultery, not lawful marriage. A Gnostic reading of this verse might be more like: women need to become men to be saved (Gospel of Thomas), and that virginity is the state of purity whereas marital sexual contact with a woman constitutes impurity.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

In gnosticism, marriage is forbidden to the psychic level of progressive holiness because psychics spend their time in contemplation to achieve or maintain their unity with God. This follows also the Orphic, Pythagorean, Platonic ideas of ascetic celibate life.

I think rather it is the pneumatics, not the psychics, who were the highest level of gnostics who were forbidden to marry.

 

[Truthstalker]

James accuses ME of eisegesis? After that display? Come on!

“must” apparently is not an apostolic command, but a “common sense suggestion.”

I could say a lot more about his latest flight of fancy, but it isn’t worth it.

 

[Truthstalker]

James,
In gnostic belief, marriage is forbidden. In Catholicism, marriage is forbidden to all who serve as priests, bishops, or who take holy orders. .

Actually it is only the Latin Rite that does this. They have a long string of scandals and failed, frustrated priests as their reward. God forbade them from doing this, but they did it anyway.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James accuses ME of eisegesis? After that display? Come on!

“must” apparently is not an apostolic command, but a “common sense suggestion.”

I could say a lot more about his latest flight of fancy, but it isn’t worth it.

There is no possible way you can read marriage as a requirement for the priesthood.
The requirement is that IF one is married it is to be to ONE woman but the full context of
Pauline recommendation is NOT to marry. If you can’t accept that as truth then
you are guilty of stalking the truth per your moniker and NOT seeking. I doubt a peeping-Tom sort of approach to looking at truth is going to gain you much merit TS.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Rev.14:4 “These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure.”

This is referring to sexual immorality, fornication and adultery, not lawful marriage. A Gnostic reading of this verse might be more like: women need to become men to be saved (Gospel of Thomas), and that virginity is the state of purity whereas marital sexual contact with a woman constitutes impurity.

Actually you have a poor translation as well as a very shoddy personal interpretation that won’t stand up to scholarship. Here is the proper translation:

*Rev 14:4
These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been ransomed as the firstfruits of the human race for God and the Lamb. *

The literal translation is THEY ARE VIRGIN. For a bible-only sort of fella that should be the only criteria you are permitted and so it is sufficient for me to stop right here since this is a proof that you are chasing a rabbit down a hole with your Gnostic theories. I have just proven that virginity and holines are the ultimate goal in heaven and by your own standards that’s a heaven of Gnostic’s and that means the apostles had to be Gnostic too unless you want to define them exempt. But then you need to back peddle all the way back to Genesis to exempt the Jewish scripture writer’s too. Admit it or lose all credibility. The problem is you have your history back-arse-wards. Gnosticism stole the idea of chastity and holiness from earlier ideas.

But I see here you want to use the metaphorical and not the literal - interesting shift of standards eh?

Virgins is indeed used metaphorically, because they never indulged in any idolatrous practices, which are considered in the Old Testament to be adultery and fornication (Rev 2:14-15, 20-22; 17:1-6; cf Ezekiel 16:1-58; 23:1-49). The parallel passages (Rev 7:3; 22:4) indicate that the 144,000 whose foreheads are sealed represent all Christian people.

So you have multiple problems on your hands in your attempt to prove Gnostic influence in the Catholic Church by using a 1 dimensional and very primitive literalistic interpretation of scripture. Using your own very parochial standard I just proved that Gnostic elements are in the bible. So you are attempting to cross thread history as well as the many different senses of scripture. In doing so you are ignoring fully 75% of the known major senses of scripture by permitting only a very fundamentalist and parochial literal sense (and I might add a literal sense devoid of any reasonable insight into history or apostolic teaching or apparent scholarship to contextualize it to within even “the ballpark” so to speak) . You completely ignore or are oblivious to the following scriptural senses: Historical sense; Etiological sense; Analogical sense, Plenary sense, Consequent sense, Metaphorical sense, Spiritual Sense, Spiritual-Metaphorical, Allegorical sense, Moral/Tropological senses.

You are wasting your time with a poor basis as well as an inferior methodology - not to mention the lack of reasoning & intellectual facilities. I consider myself only average equipped myself so if I can see these blatant errors the it follows that what you say would never stand up to to even a peer reviewed critique much less the scrutiny of experts.

James

 

[Truthstalker]

There is no possible way you can read marriage as a requirement for the priesthood.
The requirement is that IF one is married it is to be to ONE woman but the full context of
Pauline recommendation is NOT to marry. If you can’t accept that as truth then
you are guilty of stalking the truth per your moniker and NOT seeking. I doubt a peeping-Tom sort of approach to looking at truth is going to gain you much merit TS.

James

Apparently you have difficulties with reading comprehension. It is NORMATIVE for elders to be married. That means MOST should be MARRIED. Paul held himself out as an EXCEPTION (1 Cor 9:5) which you seem incapable of addressing because it blows your whole case away as dust and ashes. I guess you missed it the first time. The other apostles were MARRIED. That means the other APOSTLES has WIVES. That means they were not SINGLE. That means they were not CELIBATE. They were MARRIED. It is normative for MARRIED people to have CHILDREN, even elders, per the passages above. ELDERS CAN be SINGLE. It is not NORMATIVE.

Paul said marriage was OK. He did not command everyone to be CELIBATE.

ELDERS and PRIESTS are different concepts and words in SCRIPTURE. We are all PRIESTS. Only some are ELDERS. PRIESTS offer sacrifice as their primary duty; elders teach and preach and administer. We see from the sad history of Catholicism that priests generally do little teaching and lots of sacrament, contrary to SCRIPTURE, which the CATHOLIC CHURCH regards as sacred, even when it violates it, as in the present case, due to gnostic influence, control issues, or convenience.

What part of this did you not understand? I will use smaller words if I need to.

 

[Truthstalker]

Actually you have a poor translation as well as a very shoddy personal interpretation that won’t stand up to scholarship. Here is the proper translation:

Rev 14:4
These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been ransomed as the firstfruits of the human race for God and the Lamb.

“Proper translation” meaning one you agree with. I looked at the NASB and it is very close to this. But I also looked at the Greek. My “proper translation” is “these are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they are [male] virgins, these the ones following the lamb wherever he might go.” “Male virgins {parthenoi}” can refer to chaste persons, whio are not necessarily physically virgins. You can live in a godly way with a woman and have children with her. One can also fornicate or commit adultery. You of course take an extreme position in your Scripture twisting and attempt to show that Scripture says that all sexual contact is evil, which is absurd from the get-go, but that is the position you are taking, in your attempt to fuse gnosticism with the Bible. You attempt to read into it things that are not there.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Apparently you have difficulties with reading comprehension. It is NORMATIVE for elders to be married. That means MOST should be MARRIED. Paul held himself out as an EXCEPTION (1 Cor 9:5) which you seem incapable of addressing because it blows your whole case away as dust and ashes. I guess you missed it the first time. The other apostles were MARRIED. That means the other APOSTLES has WIVES. That means they were not SINGLE. That means they were not CELIBATE. They were MARRIED. It is normative for MARRIED people to have CHILDREN, even elders, per the passages above. ELDERS CAN be SINGLE. It is not NORMATIVE.

Paul said marriage was OK. He did not command everyone to be CELIBATE.

ELDERS and PRIESTS are different concepts and words in SCRIPTURE. We are all PRIESTS. Only some are ELDERS. PRIESTS offer sacrifice as their primary duty; elders teach and preach and administer. We see from the sad history of Catholicism that priests generally do little teaching and lots of sacrament, contrary to SCRIPTURE, which the CATHOLIC CHURCH regards as sacred, even when it violates it, as in the present case, due to gnostic influence, control issues, or convenience.

What part of this did you not understand? I will use smaller words if I need to.

Sorry TS - but the passages we are speaking of here are NOT a commandment to marry.
They are mandates to having ONLY a single wife IF one is married. If Paul were making a commandment he would be invalidating himself since he (and some others too) is not married. Use some common sense.

The various translations all intermix the words elder and priests. The term “elder” has been used interchangeably with priests. The terminology is not important here. What is important here is that there are 3 distinct general classes of ecclesial authority within the Church. These were the equivalent of what we now call Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

ONLY BISHOPS have the authority to ordain. But any of them could appoint lay members to do any administrative thing they needed help in. What you call a pastor or a minister in a Protestant church we Catholics would call a lay teacher of scripture since these have ABSOLUTELY NO ECCLESIAL SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY since they are NOT ORDAINED. The problem is you guys invent new theology on the fly and don’t even teach scripture properly nor have any authority what so ever to do so.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

“Proper translation” meaning one you agree with. I looked at the NASB and it is very close to this. But I also looked at the Greek. My “proper translation” is “these are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they are [male] virgins, these the ones following the lamb wherever he might go.” “Male virgins {parthenoi}” can refer to chaste persons, whio are not necessarily physically virgins. You can live in a godly way with a woman and have children with her. One can also fornicate or commit adultery. You of course take an extreme position in your Scripture twisting and attempt to show that Scripture says that all sexual contact is evil, which is absurd from the get-go, but that is the position you are taking, in your attempt to fuse gnosticism with the Bible. You attempt to read into it things that are not there.

In the tradition of Protestantism I took your own standards of literalism to show how ridiculous the idea is is to use a literalistic basis of the bible for the standard to go “witch hunting” (another very popular Protestant Tradition) for Gnostics in the Catholic Church. So I turned the standard around to eat its own lunch.

CATHOLICS DO NOT believe in literal interpretation except for when it is intended. And I subsequently to making my point gave the proper teaching as metaphorical of those who did not have worship false idols. CATHOLICS BELIEVE that MARRIAGE is Holy when kept chaste within a proper Christian context.

The OP attempts to use his own literalistic standard to judge Catholics as Gnostics and I just used his own standard to prove that if that were true then that poor judgement can just as easily find Gnosticism in the bible. The point I make is who gets to interpret scripture? I say the person who has been at it from day one - CATHOLICS - not neo-Christians with no apostolic linkage to history whatsoever and other hobbyist scripture readers and conspiracy theorists.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Apparently you have difficulties with reading comprehension. It is NORMATIVE for elders to be married. That means MOST should be MARRIED. Paul held himself out as an EXCEPTION (1 Cor 9:5) which you seem incapable of addressing because it blows your whole case away as dust and ashes. I guess you missed it the first time. The other apostles were MARRIED. That means the other APOSTLES has WIVES. That means they were not SINGLE. That means they were not CELIBATE. They were MARRIED. It is normative for MARRIED people to have CHILDREN, even elders, per the passages above. ELDERS CAN be SINGLE. It is not NORMATIVE.

Paul said marriage was OK. He did not command everyone to be CELIBATE.

Let me now completely eviscerate your assertion that Paul is saying that it is normative for elders to marry.

First of all are you really so bold as to suggest here yet another new, never before heard Protestant Pauline Supremacy theory? Is Paul now speaking for ALL the bishops of The (Catholic) Church as a self appointed pope? Remember Paul is the new kid on the block and never personally met Jesus like the other apostles. Do you imagine that some of the other bishops might have a problem with that? I know Peter would and so would Matthew and others.

Matthew 19:11-12, “But He said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men,** and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven**. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Do you understand what this means? Do you think Jesus was condoning physical castration? NO! He’s talking about those who renounce their right to marry and have physical relations with their wife. And, he says that not every man can “receive” this precept - just like not all men are called to the priesthood. It is not an initial requirement but this in fact becomes the normative discipline later on in the Church history. And Jesus is also talking about those who He calls from childhood to remain virginal priests all their lives. Clearly the priesthood is SPECIAL and not for everyone and not for those who might want to go hang a divinity diploma on the wall and self appoint themselves God’s priests without being called AND ordained by an apostolic bishop.

If Paul were speaking as “bishop of bishops” (what we now call a pope) don’t you think that these eunuchs would have a wee bit of a problem getting married. consummating it and then becoming “elders” or “overseers”? Paul is NOT speaking as head of The Church and is just giving minimal requirements for those to be ordained into the Church for those under HIS apostolate. He simply wants no scandals and wants those who are married to not be in a polygamist relationship or in a contested relationship with more than one wife or with any mistresses. Don’t you think the requirements are reasonable that Paul does not want an adulterer as a priest in The Church given that scripture tells us none of these will enter God’s Kingdom? I know that some Protestants have relaxed the rules here to permit homosexuality marriage but let’s not go there right now…

But please do tell me just how a eunuch could qualify under Paul’s terms to serve God in The Church as an ordained member if your silly theory about Paul making marriage a requirement for the priesthood (which he exempted himself from) prevented them from consummating a marriage? What woman would want a eunuch for a husband? Eh?

Clearly your interpretation is nonsensical and illogical.

If you want to rewrite scripture to make what you say true then it would have to look something like this:

1 Tim 4:1-4 Protestantized Version:
MOST MUST MARRY, BUT NOT ALL SO PAUL CAN BE SINGLE IN ORDER TO FOLLOW PAUL’S ADVICE ABOUT NOT HAVING DIVIDED INTERESTS AND BEING FREE FROM ANXIETY WHEN SEEKING TO SERVE THE LORD, AND TO FULFILL JESUS’ WORDS ABOUT SOME WHO WILL BE ABLE TO ‘RECEIVE’ THE CALL TO MAKE THEMSELVES EUNUCHS FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.”

Please use some common sense…

James

 

[Truthstalker]

Please stop building straw men. You haven’t answered what I said at all.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Please stop building straw men. You haven’t answered what I said at all.

Me building a Strawmen? You are the one looking like the scarecrow from Oz here in a hasty retreat. Is this a cry of “uncle”?

You didn’t rebut a single one of the dozen or so scriptures that is the scriptural basis for
The Catholic Priesthood and its self imposed disciplines for celibacy in the Roman Rite. We hold ourselves to Christ’s very own example and take it very seriously.

Paul said marriage was OK. He did not command everyone to be CELIBATE.

Correct. He did not have the authority to command the entire church to marry nor to be celibate. If this was a requirement Peter or one of Peter’s successors would have proclaimed it. And in fact that is just what happens in The Church. A successor of Peter commands celibacy at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

*Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt. *

**The direction of Paul concerning elders/priests marital status is to the rational and educated mind decidedly and unambiguously “restrictive”, “not injunctive”; it excludes men who have married more than once, but it does not impose marriage as a necessary condition. ** This **freedom of choice **seems to have lasted during the whole of what we may call the first period of the Church’s legislation, i.e. down to about the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea (325 AD).

This change was in part a utilitarian motive (to facilitate undivided service) but it also went much deeper theologically as the Church started to understand more fully the depth of Christ’s example and the Holy Spirit revealed deeper truths. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother, and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. This was a gradual revelation to the Catholic Church.

Virginity is thus revealed as the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoined that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple.

In the history of clerical celibacy conciliar legislation marks the second period during which the law took definite shape both in the East and in the West. The earliest enactment on the subject is that of the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy upon the three higher orders of the clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons. If they continue to live with their wives and beget children after their ordination they are to be deposed.

More here: newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

We see from the sad history of Catholicism that priests generally do little teaching and lots of sacrament, contrary to SCRIPTURE, which the CATHOLIC CHURCH regards as sacred, even when it violates it, as in the present case, due to gnostic influence, control issues, or convenience.

What part of this did you not understand? I will use smaller words if I need to.

And in present light of your retreat we see here how your criticism, having been put to the test, found lacking and being quite bloodied by the encounter is without any merit whatsoever. It is indeed a sad time in Christianity when the sons of heretics that the Catholics tossed out of the protection of the Church under anathema under the hope that certain ensuing depravity would lead them back home have instead become so reprobate and deprived of orthodox teachings and good sense such that they can no longer discern up from down. How ironic it is when God’s Church must suffer those who call it evil even as its trying to save them from themselves. I suppose that this is exactly what Jesus experienced on His way to Calvary and no doubt reflected on being called of Satan even as he healed them.

It’s time to admit you have it wrong and come back to The Church.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Proof that celibacy was condoned and recommended in scripture:

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

James

Now James, did you not refer to Rev.14 to support literal rather than metaphorical virginity/celibacy?

Is the ascetic celibate contemplative life more honored, more pure, more holy than married life?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I looked briefly at the Psychotheosophy thread. Thanks very much. I would like to proceed with this one then compare later to see if similar conclusions were drawn.

One conclusion seem to be that,
Gnosticism is superficial, as it does not follow any principle.
Catholicism follows principles.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Now James, did you not refer to Rev.14 to support literal rather than metaphorical virginity/celibacy?

Is the ascetic celibate contemplative life more honored, more pure, more holy than married life?

Yes - the two central figures of the NT, Jesus and Mary set the example. They were both virginal and celibate. And we also know that there is a hiearchy in heaven and the notion of the “least in heaven”.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

1 Corinthians 3:8: "… and each one will receive His own reward according to his own labor

This does not mean that a married couple properly consecrated to each other and the Lord and living in a chaste life can not attain to high levels of perfection though. It can be certain that having to suffer each other’s faults and human frailties for life is quite sufficient a suffrage to merit much grace.

But its clear that there is special recognition given to virgins, priests/bishops and the martyrs. But scripture tells us that not all can drink the same cup nor are all called to this for that reason. But being the least in heaven or higher up is infinitely better than not being in at all so to speak. We all also belive that God has a way of saintly sharing in the honors with each other in heaven so that there is no jealousy in any way in heaven. What brings Glory to one brings glory and honor to others since they are all part of the same family and because its all for God’s glory (which he shares).

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

One conclusion seem to be that,
Gnosticism is superficial, as it does not follow any principle.
Catholicism follows principles.

Gnosticism seems to have the core element of distancing from the physical through ascetic celibate discipline characteristic of the pneumatics, at least in Marcionism, that has its parallel in sainthood in Catholicism and to which monastics aspire…