M
mercygate
Guest
But he was not married. The weight of the scriptural report is entirely on the side of Paul’s being single, as is the weight of tradition.
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
Lets assume you are right. Does he ever use his status as a single man as the qualification for being a church leader?
M
mercygate
Guest
You are struggling needlessly. Paul definitely affirms the value of remaining single. Our Lord commends it “for the sake of the Kingdom” and as a sign of the Resurrection – which is kind of the whole point of the Gospel.
Clerical celibacy evolved early in the history of the Church as both a spiritual discipline and as a spiritual sign. Our Lord Himself was not married; those who “follow Him” in this do well.
Niggling about “leadership” is just that: a niggle that gripes about a perfectly sound practice that people have taken a disliking to basically because it is largely a Catholic practice.
J
justasking4
Guest
I don’t think it is a sound practice nor is it natural. There are many problems associated with it.
M
mercygate
Guest
Trust me. I was an Episcopalian for 30 years. Many good men were married and were good priests. But they had just as many “problems associated with it” as the Catholic clergy. There is no “greener grass” on this issue.
T
Tom
Guest
Very well said, “I” don’t think it is a sound practice. Exactly correct. Your opinion which is opposite of the teaching of God
www.drbo.org:
So on the one hand, we have you saying it is not a sound practice, on the other we have the Word of God saying it is good. Hmmm, which should we follow, such a quandary!
G
guanophore
Guest
No, once someone has received Holy Orders, even in the Eastern Rites, one is expected to be committed wholly to the Church. The Church does ordain persons who were previously married, but once they receive orders, the are considered married to the Church. This is the case among our Orthodox brethren as well.
Same with Anglican, and anyone who the Church discerns received a call to holy orders prior to coming into the fullness of the faith. However, such persons are assigned to other duties besides pastoral, so that they can give attention to their families that they may not be able to do if they had the responsibilities of a pastor.
This is nonsense. Are you trying to derail this thread also, ja4?
This is true, which is why the Church does not do so either. Jesus noted that some chose to become eunuchs for the Kingdom, and it is from those that choose this that the Latin Rite selects clerics.
Why is this a problem for you? Don’t you think that a family man ought to focus on his family, instead of strangers?
“A married man is concerned with the affairs of this world, and how he can please his wife”.
Well, this is not accurate, as the scriptures never relate celibacy with leadership, however, it is great that you have finally come to an agreement with the Catholic teaching that celibacy is not a requirement for leadership. Does this mean you will stop bringing it up?
I am glad you can see that people choose to be celibate to better pursue the Kingdom. It cannot be imposed upon anyone. I am also glad you can see that it is not a mandate that everyone must be celibate to serve, or to lead, any more than being married or having children is a mandate for leaders. If that were true, Paul would have disqualified himself, as well as Jesus.
I hope you will come to the knowledge of the truth that most leadership in the parish is not provided by the priest, but by married laypersons. You really have a serious misunderstanding and hang up on this point.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, ja4, there are no “problems” with God’s gift of celibacy. Jesus did not have problems with it, and neither did Paul.
It is problematic to deny the gifts and the call of God. If it is not a sound practice or “natural” for you, then it seems clear that you have not been given this gift by God. This is not a problem, but it is wrong for you to detest the gifts of God given to others.
J
justasking4
Guest
It is true that the Roman Catholic church requires a man to be unmarried if he desires to be a bishop for example. You are immediately disqualified from being bishop because you are married.
(Edited)
M
mercygate
Guest
You cannot be ordained a bishop unless you are already a priest. You cannot be ordained a bishop unless you are Catholic. You cannot be ordained bishop unless you are male. You cannot be ordained bishop unless you are Christian. You cannot be ordained bishop before the age of 35. Tsk, tsk, tsk. All these restrictions that Jesus never thought of. The Catholic Church sure is off the rails.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, ja4, this is not accurate. Some people are not called to be bishops until after they are married, or do not discern the call previously. A bishops care is to shepherd the Church, and the church prefers to choose bishops from those who are called to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, so that their interests will not be divided. However, have been many bishops who were married. Usually they are appointed to the bishopric after their wives left them, or they became widowers.
(Edited)
M
mercygate
Guest
After their wives LEFT them? Where do you come up with THAT?
G
guanophore
Guest
In the very early days of the Church, in both East and West, celibacy was not a requirement for priesthood (although this quickly evolved) Jesus called both married and unmarried Apostles, and the Apostles ordained both married and umarried men to Holy Orders. Paul’s teaching on living at peace with Pagans was followed. If an unbelieving wife chose not to stay with her husband, she was free to depart. Such a man may become a priest, or a bishop. All who were ordained, whether married or not were expected to be celibate.
J
justasking4
Guest
You got this half right. Their is no office of “priest” in the NT though.
Where is the evidence for this claim that the apostles themselves did this?
Are saying this did happen in cases found in the NT or are you speculating again?
Is it not true in the later centuries the catholic church demanded that married leaders i.e. priest and bishops were to abtain from sex with their wives?
G
guanophore
Guest
The word “priest” is a derivation of the word “presbyter” which is found all over the NT, also translated “elder”.
There is ample evidence in the early fathers, but more to your liking perhaps is in the NT. Paul appoints bishops, and instructs them to appoint faithful men, who are able to teach others also. This is Apostolic Succession.
This is part of Paul’s instruction in the NT. Since Paul did not just write to entertain himself, we must infer that he had real life reasons for such counsel.
ja4, the Church does not “demand” from people. The Church holds up a standard that was given by Christ.
One who accepts Holy Orders is considered espoused to the Church (the Bride of Christ).
J
JReducation
Guest
Not much is known about Peter’s family life. However, it is known that he was married at some point.
It is also known that the clergy was married in both east and west. The celibacy requirement is only for priests and bishops in the west and only for bishops in the east.
This only applies to secular priests, not to priests who belong to religioius orders. Priests who belong to religious orders are religious first. Their vows to their order override Church law on celibacy, even if it were abrogated.
The question that canonists cannot answer is whether the Pope is bound by celibacy. Tradition would say that he is, because he is a bishop and bishops cannot be married in east or west.
However, canon law is subject the the pleasure of the pope. He is the person with the authority to approve and change the law. It’s part of his right to bind and unbind. That raises the question whether he can unbind his successors by passing a canon law that would dispense them from celibacy when they are elected pope.
It’s an interesting question.
JR
- Status