LDS and Catholic Differences

[dianaiad]

Where did you get your information on the Sanhedrin?

You can try here: his-forever.com/quals_for_jewish_judge_and_sanhedrin.htm

Which has quite a good list of qualifications for membership in the Sanhedrin, including the fact that a member must not be very old, sterile or even childless. Since having a child by necessity (in that culture as in ours…) means having a wife to bear one…

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=229#767 (Jewish Encyclopedia.com) also states that they had to be ‘tall, of imposing appearance, popular, and of advanced age) (preferably over 40 but DEFINITELY no younger than 18) having knowledge of foreign languages and "some of the arts of the necromancer.’ (whatever that means.)

According to the Talmud, and Maimonides a member of the Sanhedrin MUST be" wise and sensible, learned in the law and full of knowledge, and also acquainted to some extent with other subjects such as medicine, arithmetic, astronomy and astrology. He believes a judge must not be too old, nor may he be a childless man." In other words, he may be a widower, but he MUST have been married at least long enough to have children. (from the Jewish Virtual Library; jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/BetDin.html )

Will that do?

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholics deal with this just fine. The celibate priesthood is a church practice, not a doctrine. It was a reform taken by the Latin church about 1000 years ago to focus the clergy on their vocations and eliminate questions about inheritances by the children of priests.

I understand that, Paul. I wonder if you can see the irony in claiming that a celibate priesthood, even though it seems to be in direct violation of this verse, is perfectly acceptable because it is merely a ‘church practice…’ at the same time you criticize the LDS for practicing polygamy and use this same verse as a prooftext against that.

At least we have the excuse of believing it to be revelation.

 

[dianaiad]

Where is the conclusive evidence that he was ever married? It’s not in the Bible.

Where is the conclusive proof that he never was, especially since it would have been HIGHLY unusual for him not to be? In fact, given his ambition and his position, he would not only have to have been married, but also a father.

You realize that lack of proof is not proof of lack here, right? Use your logic; if you send a bouquet of roses to your sweetheart, and they are all supposed to be red ones, what is the safest thing to assume when she simply says thank you…that they arrived as they were supposed to, or that someone put a thistle in the middle? She would mention something that unusual, don’t you think? The thing is, the norm was that Paul not only would have been married, but also have children. The safe thing to assume is that his life was as it was expected to be UNLESS there was specific mention that it was not. That is, if the bible does NOT state that he was never married, then the logical thing to assume is…given his position…that he was.

 

[aspirant]

Even though I certainly do not intend to convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S., I would like to read the Book of Mormon. Though it is of somewhat dubious origins, it still sounds interesting.

I’ve read large sections of it. I recommend starting with the book called Ether.

Not all Rabbis were in the Sanhedrin, y’know.

Like Paul, a Pharisee who was not likely advanced enough in age to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

As to whether Jews believe that the ancient prophets were celibate or not I have no clue.

But those of us who have read portions of the Mishnah and Talmud do know that ancient Jews believed this.

 

[dianaiad]

bukowski seems to think that Paul was married before, therefore that is a teaching, or indication, that everyone should be married. I was addressing this illogical conclusion.

There you go, making stuff up again.

Simply asking a question, Rebecca. As for the LDS position on this, you are quite right. We DO believe, and teach, that everyone should be married.

 

[dianaiad]

So I don’t get accused of jumping to conclusions, what is your point?

Ricko asked me for the websites from which I got my information regarding fees paid for wedding services in Catholic churches. I gave them to him. Any “point” was made in the post that contained the information I got from these sites. go look.

 

[dianaiad]

I’ve read large sections of it. I recommend starting with the book called Ether.

Like Paul, a Pharisee who was not likely advanced enough in age to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

But those of us who have read portions of the Mishnah and Talmud do know that ancient Jews believed this.

Really? Care to give me the references? Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where is the conclusive proof that he never was, especially since it would have been HIGHLY unusual for him not to be? In fact, given his ambition and his position, he would not only have to have been married, but also a father.

You realize that lack of proof is not proof of lack here, right? Use your logic; if you send a bouquet of roses to your sweetheart, and they are all supposed to be red ones, what is the safest thing to assume when she simply says thank you…that they arrived as they were supposed to, or that someone put a thistle in the middle? She would mention something that unusual, don’t you think? The thing is, the norm was that Paul not only would have been married, but also have children. The safe thing to assume is that his life was as it was expected to be UNLESS there was specific mention that it was not. That is, if the bible does NOT state that he was never married, then the logical thing to assume is…given his position…that he was.

Oh brother, Timothy’s his real son?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ricko asked me for the websites from which I got my information regarding fees paid for wedding services in Catholic churches. I gave them to him. Any “point” was made in the post that contained the information I got from these sites. go look.

But what is the point of bringing up that some Catholic Churches have fees for weddings?

 

[sablouwho]

that just because some Catholics have told me this, it doesn’t mean that ALL Catholics think this, or that the Catholic church has it as an official statement on my probable destination.

However, folks like Prodigal Son and others seem to think that if one Mormon says something unkind, that this is set in stone; that ALL Mormons, then, think that way.

Wait, you mean…like…Mormons are people too? Is that what you’re saying Diana?

(Obviously j/k )

 

[aspirant]

For St. James in Falls Church, go here: stjamescatholic.org/weddings.html

Good grief. St. James is situated in the middle of one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country.

Meanwhile: “In a situation of true financial difficulty, couples can come to an agreement with their pastors so that true financial hardship will never prevent a Catholic marriage from taking place.”

Rabbis WERE expected to marry. Those who did not were very few and far between.

I agree, but it was not (as some mistakenly believe) a strict requirement for rabbis, and Saul was still a young man.

I am going to take your claim that all OT prophets were celibate with a very large shaker of salt.

The question is not whether they were celibate, but what ancient Jews believed regarding their celibacy. Regarding Moses, for example, the Talmud’s Shabbat tractate comments on Exodus 19:15 thus:

What was the object of Moses in separating himself from a woman? He applied the order given the Israelites (to separate themselves from their wives) to himself in a so much larger degree (i.e., the order having been issued to the Israelites for the reason that they would shortly hear the word of the Lord, it would be so much more proper for him, who frequently was spoken to by the Lord, to separate himself entirely from a woman). And whence do we know that the Lord agreed to this also? It is written [Deut. v. 27 and 28]: “Go, say to them, Return you unto your tents. But as for thee, remain thou here by me.”

You can try here: his-forever.com/quals_for_jewish_judge_and_sanhedrin.htm

Which has quite a good list of qualifications for membership in the Sanhedrin, including the fact that a member must not be very old

The ancient requirements, according to the Sanhedrin tractate, include: “None are to be appointed members of the Sanhedrin, but men of stature, wisdom, good appearance, mature age, with a knowledge of sorcery, and who are conversant with all the seventy languages of mankind, in order that the court should have no need of an interpreter.” Of “mature age” was understood to be 40 or older. Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, was “a young man.”

 

[mfbukowski]

Paul himself says he was not married.

1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am.

Not so. “Agamoi” is the word used here in verse 7 as well as in verse 9, which is clearly about people who have been married before.

Paul does not refer to himself as a PARQENOS, a virgin, one who has
never married, nor class himself with such, nor does he suggest in any way
that he had never married. On the contrary: in 1 Cor 7:8 Paul writes, “Now
to the AGAMOI and widows I say: it is good for them to stay as I am.” That
is, he classes himself with the AGAMOI, those who had previously been
married. And he recommends to his readers that in this regard they follow
his example and not remarry, unless and until it becomes clear that God is
continuing to give them the gift of a nature requiring marriage: in which
case they should in fact remarry (1 Cor 7:7,9).

lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1998-August/001320.html

This full account is interesting, and is from an Evangelical website. It points out that the least likely scenario is that Paul never married.

Apparantly Tertullian thought the same thing.

Tertulian, Elucidations, Book 2
St. Peter was a married apostle, and the traditions of his wife which connect her married life with Rome itself render it most surprising that those who claim to be St. Peter’s successors should denounce the marriage of the clergy as if it were crime. The touching story, borrowed from Clement of Alexandria, is related by Eusebius. “And will they,” says Clement, “reject even the apostles? Peter and Philip, indeed, had children; Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. to husbands; and Paul does not demur, in a certain Epistle, to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his ministry the better.” Of St. Peter and his wife, Eusebius subjoins, “Such was the marriage of these blessed ones, and such was their perfect affection.”(68)

biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-3-latin-christianity/tertullian/elucidation-4.html

 

[aspirant]

αγαμος means simply someone who is not married.

The epistles to Timothy were written by an unmarried and celibate bishop.

 

[mfbukowski]

bukowski seems to think that Paul was married before, therefore that is a teaching, or indication, that everyone should be married. I was addressing this illogical conclusion.

I never said that of course. Usually one addresses what is actually said instead of what is not said.

It makes for a much more convincing argument

 

[paul_c]

You can try here: his-forever.com/quals_for_jewish_judge_and_sanhedrin.htm

Which has quite a good list of qualifications for membership in the Sanhedrin, including the fact that a member must not be very old, sterile or even childless. Since having a child by necessity (in that culture as in ours…) means having a wife to bear one…

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=229#767 (Jewish Encyclopedia.com) also states that they had to be ‘tall, of imposing appearance, popular, and of advanced age) (preferably over 40 but DEFINITELY no younger than 18) having knowledge of foreign languages and "some of the arts of the necromancer.’ (whatever that means.)

According to the Talmud, and Maimonides a member of the Sanhedrin MUST be" wise and sensible, learned in the law and full of knowledge, and also acquainted to some extent with other subjects such as medicine, arithmetic, astronomy and astrology. He believes a judge must not be too old, nor may he be a childless man." In other words, he may be a widower, but he MUST have been married at least long enough to have children. (from the Jewish Virtual Library; jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/BetDin.html )

Will that do?

I read your sources and two of the three make your point that members of the Sanhedrin were married and had children. It also suggests that they were experienced judges. Paul was a young man at the time (acts 7: 57: The witnesses laid down their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul). This verse would suggest that Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin. If had been a member of the supreme court of Israel, he would have been referred to with more respect than this, don’t you think. What Paul was, traditionally, is a young, highly motivated student of Gameliel, who took it upon himself to persecute the church.

 

[mfbukowski]

Simply asking a question, Rebecca. As for the LDS position on this, you are quite right. We DO believe, and teach, that everyone should be married.

Yes we do, but I was talking about Paul only; but thanks for clarifying this D!

 

[aspirant]

If Saul of Tarsus had actually been a member of the Sanhedrin, why would he feel the need to explain to them who he is? Why not just say “You know me, I was once a member of the Sanhedrin too”?

 

[mfbukowski]

αγαμος means simply someone who is not married.

Precisely.

1 Cor 7:
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

And the same word is used in verse 11 to indicate a woman who is separated from her husband.

 

[mfbukowski]

I read your sources and two of the three make your point that members of the Sanhedrin were married and had children. It also suggests that they were experienced judges. Paul was a young man at the time (acts 7: 57: The witnesses laid down their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul). This verse would suggest that Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin. If had been a member of the supreme court of Israel, he would have been referred to with more respect than this, don’t you think. What Paul was, traditionally, is a young, highly motivated student of Gameliel, who took it upon himself to persecute the church.

Do you dispute that he was a Pharisee? Are you actually going to make me look up the reference in the NT where he explicitly says so?

Edit: ACTS 26:5

I am going to bed. I am not doing well.

 

[ricko]

Originally Posted by ricko 
of but one wife" - Polygamists are disqualified from the eldership. This may have been a common phenomenon given the culture of the early church. Today, I would think this would disqualify “serial polygamists” - (those who remarry after divorce). The phrase “but one” (actually a single word “mia” in the greek) does not disqualify single men, as Paul even recommends singleness as it frees one to servce God from from the distractions of marriage. (1Cor 7:32). 1Timothy 3

The way the Mormons interpert the bible they have verses conflicting with each other, as insisting that a bishop MUST be married conflicts with 1Cor. Allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you will solve that problem and allow you to see that HAVING to be married is taken out of context with the rest of what the bible says of marriage and serving God.

Nice dodge, Ricko, but the question isn’t about how this verse relates to Mormonism, but how the CATHOLICS deal with it, in terms of a celibate priesthood. Would you care to take a crack at that?

Dodge? You must have me confused with some Mormon. You should already know how the Catholic Church deals with that verse as you have been told many times. The priests and Bishops are unmarried, to remind you again, which is not contary to scripture, see in red above.