D
Desiring_Christ
Guest
What does the Church have to say about these verses?
Bless
Bless
*1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.
Notes & Commentary:
Ver. 1. In the last times. Literally, last days; i.e. hereafter, or in days to come. — To spirits of error and doctrines of devils; or, to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as in the Protestant translation. The sense must be, that men shall teach false doctrine by the suggestion of the devil. (Witham)
Ver. 2. Their conscience seared; hardened: a metaphor from the custom of burning malefactors with a hot iron. (Witham)
From an apologetics standpoint, where these verses are used to attack distinctively Catholic practices, see this helpful article:Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, &c. Here says St. Chrysostom are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. 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, &c. 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,” &c. St. Augustine, (lib. 30. contra 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 of Alexandria, lib. 3. Strom.
Nothing specific. Why do you ask? What are you really looking for?What does the Church have to say about these verses?
Bless
Desiring ChristWhat does the Church have to say about these verses?
Bless
FidelisThe Church doesn’t have an official stance on every verse or passage of Scripture (unless it is a key passage in defining a particular doctrine-- Mt 16:18-19, for example). Perhaps a better way to ask it is:* among Catholics, what are some acceptable interpretations of this passage?*
For example, here is what the 1859 Haydock Bible commentary says about the passage in question. :
From an apologetics standpoint, where these verses are used to attack distinctively Catholic practices, see this helpful article:
“DOCTRINES OF DEMONS”
By James Akin
You must not have read the article, since you seem to have missed two key points:Fidelis
Yes but doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church explicitly forbid marriage to those who would have authority in the Roman Catholic Church.
Unless you’ve heard of this already, the Catholic Church does not “forbid” marriage. Even to it’s priests. An example? Eastern Catholic Churches can and do have married priests. Furthermore, this is not a doctrinal issue in the first place with in the Church, but one of discipline. Examples of scripture that supports chastity, without being married is this:Fidelis
Yes but doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church explicitly forbid marriage to those who would have authority in the Roman Catholic Church. And this is a matter of fact, not some redirection to some other situation, for if some other church or churches have done this in past history why is it so in the Roman Catholic Church, in reference to this text, since the Roman Catholic Church is aware of it’s Truth. Consider, should we believe what The Apostle Paul has to say in what we should see and recognize as so. Or the Roman Catholic Church’s lengthy intellectual superiority of bla bla bla excuse, oh I mean explanation, of being a word for word manifestation of what is said here? When one can plainly see it has come to pass. This is the later times, isn’t it? It is what it is, no need to deny it, in Church pride of Church infallibility.
It says “forbidding to marry.”Nothing specific. Why do you ask? What are you really looking for?
Wait but surely the ROMAN Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry; am I correct?Unless you’ve heard of this already, the Catholic Church does not “forbid” marriage. Even to it’s priests.
I believe you didn’t fully read my post. I will try to clarify.It says “forbidding to marry.”
Wait but surely the ROMAN Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry; am I correct?
So i could become a Priest and technically get married in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?I believe you didn’t fully read my post. I will try to clarify.
There is no “Roman Catholic Church” in the sense that it is separate from the Eastern Catholic Church. There is just the “Catholic Church”. Now, when referring to the Latin (or Roman) rite of the Catholic Church, which you are addressing, the issue of marriage is not doctrinal. As said in previous posts by other posters, the Catholic Church is pretty much all about marriage. Marriage is one of the Seven Sacraments in fact.
In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, those who wish to become priests do forsake marriage, but as I’ve written in my previous post this is for the sake of the kingdom. Likewise, the Church does not demand this (that’s why there is marriage in the Eastern Catholic Church), but it is a voluntary discipline. It could be changed tomorrow, and every Catholic Priest of the Latin (Roman) rite could participate in the marriage sacrament. Wheras a doctrinal manner could never be changed. If it was a matter of doctrine and it said “forbid”, then yes you would be right. However, the fact of the matter is, is that either way the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage, but considers it one of the most sacred institutions God has ever created.
So, in other words, no, you are not correct.
No. Again, you’ve not read what I’ve wrote. Please read it again. What I clearly said, was that Priests of the Latin Rite (Roman) of the Catholic Church understand that it is a discipline to give up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, as said in my previous post. However, this discipline is not doctrine/dogma and can be changed. In the Eastern Catholic Church (Ukrainian for example) you are able to be married prior to becoming a priest, and then once the spouse dies, the priest cannot re-marry.So i could become a Priest and technically get married in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?
You are incorrect in the sense you are determined to define it, and you are determined to define it that way since you have a pet pre-conceived anti-Catholic position on this matter.It says “forbidding to marry.”
Wait but surely the ROMAN Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry; am I correct?
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church currently forbids its priests to marry, as the Orthodox Church does too. But the Roman Catholic Church does not forbid married priests.It says “forbidding to marry.”
Wait but surely the ROMAN Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry; am I correct?
You could only become a priest if you are male and met all other requirements.So i could become a Priest and technically get married in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?
FidelisYou must not have read the article, since you seem to have missed two key points:
- The problem of wrenching the passage out of it’s original context: This passage is directed to the problem of the early Gnostics who were telling people that marriage itself is evil. As the article also pointed out, the Catholic Church not only venerates marriage, but vigorously promotes it.
- *The problem of charging the Church with something it doesn’t do: *The Church “forbids” no one to marry. No one has to become a priest or a religious; when a person makes a decision to follow one of these vocations, he or she knows full well what it entails, including the giving up of something good —in this case marriage-- to be able to embrace full-time, exclusive service to the Lord. In this they imitate St. Paul, John the Baptist, and many other great biblical saints–and even Our Lord Himself.
Being an apostate Catholic hardly makes you an authority on anything. Many infamous heretics and notorious sinners were raised Catholic as well. If they would have really known and lived their Catholic Faith, they never would have left it in the first place.Fidelis
thanks for the reply
Please I was rased a Roman Catholic, I know where of I speak…
I am not anti-catholic at all lol i just simply thought that it was dogma and i was having trouble understanding. Relax.You are incorrect in the sense you are determined to define it, and you are determined to define it that way since you have a pet pre-conceived anti-Catholic position on this matter.
If you can’t or won’t directly address the points I and others have made-- looking, considering and commenting on what the Church actually teaches about this rather than sticking to tired prejudices, there’s not much else we can do for you. Civility in conversation–even on the internet-- requires dialogue, not a rude, one-sided rant. Farewell; you will be in my prayers.
Yes. In fact, my diocese has a priest who is married with children. (He was already married when he was ordained to the priesthood.)Yes, the Roman Catholic Church currently forbids its priests to marry, as the Orthodox Church does too. But the Roman Catholic Church does not forbid married priests.
Hope this helps.
Sorry for my terse reply. You were not the object of my frustration on this thread.I am not anti-catholic at all lol i just simply thought that it was dogma and i was having trouble understanding. Relax.
And also i didnt mean to be rude and i’m sorry if it came off that way. Its a little hard to communicate over text ya know?