J
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
Look, clerical celebacy is not a precept of the divine or natural law; neither is it a dogma of the Catholic Church. It is simply an obligatory law of the Western Church, imposed with a view to the dignity and duties of the priesthood.Where did Jesus or His apostles ever mandate that leaders in the church were to be single and celibate? Chapter and verse please.
The Shepard never made a personâs marital status part of representing Him. Did Jesus pick married or unmarried men to be His apostles or disciples? Did He say anywhere in the gospels that a leader of His must be single and celibate?
If what you say is true then why does Paul in I Timothy 3 want married men with familes to be leaders in the church?
I know your church says this but it is an unbilical mandate. It is a doctrine of men.
Then you are contradicting your own Sacred Traditions since even you admit here that the bishop is a husband i.e. a married man.
What i see you doing is rejecting the clear counsel of Scripture on this matter.
If a Roman Catholic man is married and wants to become a priest can he do so while being married?
Iâm fully aware of these âexceptionsâ that you mention. Its my previous one you need to deal with. That is the question that goes to the heart of the matter.
.
St. Paul himself led a life of celibacy and recommended it, as Jesus had done, to all who felt called to the virgin life. 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 25-28.
Virginity, he adds, is preferable to marriage as a higher state. 1 Corinthians 7:32-33. Refer to Revelation 14:3-5.
G
guanophore
Guest
They did not, as far as I know. The only place this exists is in your mind. The priesthood is a particular vocation that is primarily about the preservation and promulgation of sacraments. Some priests donât even make good leaders. Not only that, in the Latin Rite, especially in America, the vast majority of leadership in the parishes is done by married laypeople. I donât know how this crazy equation got into your head, and why you cannot get it out. You donât even believe that Sacraments exist! Why would it bother you so much if they were enacted by a celibate man?
No. The only place I know of where this thought exists is in the mind of ja4. And perhaps whatever anti-Catholic source you are feeding from that supplies such misunderstandings.
This verse does not say what you want to make it say. It does say that if a man has had more than one wife, then he is not a good candidate, and that if his children are unruly, he is not managing his household well. Think about what you are saying here, ja4. Why would Paul give a commandment that would disqualify both himself, and the person to whom he is writing?
Wrong on all three counts, ja4. Scripture is quite clear on the benefits of âeunuchs for the kingdomâ and how they can devote their full attention to God. How can you deny this? Secondly, celibacy is not a âmandateâ. It is a spiritual gift that Jesus commanded to be recieved by those to whom it is given. No one can ârequireâ certain gifts in a person. These are distributed by the HS, not by people. All the Church can do is require that the office be reserved for persons who have been given the gift. Thirdly, it is not a doctrine at all, it is a discipline. You are quite wrong.
How do you see that? I see no contradiction here. That some of the bishops were married and that there are married priests in no way contradicts the preference of the Roman Rite for celibate candidates. On the contrary, it reinforces my point that it is a discipline, and not a doctrine.
You are certainly welcome to your perceptions, ja4, however erroneous they may be!
He may enter discernment for the vocation of priesthood. Whether he is eventually ordained would depend upon a number of factors. He could certainly complete the diaconate training, and become ordained as a deacon.
The heart of the matter, ja4, is that you have separated yourself from the Sacred Tradition that produced the Scripture, and that separation predisposes you to misunderstanding what is written, as you do in this case.
J
justasking4
Guest
In any of Paulâs writings does he ever refer to himself as a bishop? Iâm not aware of any. He was an apostle not a bishop.
What he is doing here is laying down the qualifications for church leadership and part of that leadership requirement is that the man be married etc.
Now your church, especially in regards to its bishops ignores the Word of God on this requirement and dilberately keeps out married men from being bishops.
J
justasking4
Guest
What is the context for your statementââeunuchs for the kingdomâ and how they can devote their full attention to God"?
Is it used as a requirement for leadership?
Iâm not addressing what a person can be devoted to but the marital status of the man. The marital status of a man who is catholic will determine if he can even be considered for leadership as a bishop. In your church the mere fact he is married will mean he will not be considered if he is a catholic married man.
It is so a mandate in the sense that if you are a man catholic man you will never be considered for the office of a bishop or priest.
Where does Paul speak of leadership as described in I Timothy 3 as a âgiftâ?
i donât want to be wrongâ
How would you define discipline?All disciplines in the catholic church are grounded in some doctrine either directly or indirectly. A doctrine is a rule or principle on which disciplines are formed.
Nice try. You know very well under the example i have given you he will never be considered to be a priest while married. His wife has to die before he would be considered. Correct?
Not so. It is you and your church that has nullified the Word of God for the sake of your tradiitons.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
What is your point? If you want to seperate yourself from the authority of The Church its your soul not ours. Why are you here? Are you here to talk Catholics out of their faith and to come join Pope JA IVs Bible Church? Why not go to a Protestant site and see if you can recruit? They will let you marry and teach whatever you want as long as somone listens and you can roll off a pseudo-random mosaic of scripture verses that gives a plausible impression that what you say is written âsomewhereâ in the bible.
Do you get a kick out attacking every aspect of The Catholic Churchâs hiearchy and authority? Admit it, you really have a personal problem with any authority outside yourself and your KJV donât you? Thatâs OK - so did Luther and all the other heretics that were seperated from The Church over the last 2,000 years.
But consider that itâs just profoundly absurd and cheeky to come into a Catholic Forum of highly educated Christians and think you have the authority to teach us your own private doctrine and anyone will agree with the nonsense you are spewing. There is absolutely NO requirement for marriage in being a âleaderâ in The Church. How can Paul possibly teach this when Jesus himself was not married!! The Church is founded on Jesus Christ not on Pope JA IVs private interpretation.
What do you have new to bring to the discussion that has not already been spoken to over the last 500 years? Much more scholarly men than you have used more cogent arguments against the Catholic Church that have been soundly defeated in areas of Church Doctrine.
So, unless you have something new to say that has not already been said you are just wasting your breath and our time. Final question. Do you get paid to come into these forums to waste every oneâs time with such circuitous reasoning?
James
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
Why are you using only Scripture to support your positions? Where is the Bible chapter and verse for this technique?
Your technique is actually the man-made tradition, unless you can come up with the chapter and verse of using Scripture alone to support and refute positions.
Oh, I see. You say that only the written word can be known for sure so that is the only reliable authority for you.
Well Iâve already mentioned that we do not have the original books of the New Testament, so how do you know errors did not creep in when the infallibe originals were being copied (and you have one of those copies now) by fallible hands? Is this yet another man-made tradition of yours to believe the Bible you have in your hands is actually like the Originals? How do you know this with 100% certainity again?
My bigger question is this: When did people first start relying on the Bible as the sole rule of authority? Or was it like this from the very beginning?
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, All
Did you know removing books from the bible is a not a good thing.
âNow therefore we make thee this day High Priest (Vicar of Christ) of thy nation, and that thou be called the Kingâs friend (and he sent them a Purple ROBE, and a CROWN OF GOLD (Miter)), and that thou be of one mind with us in our affairs, and keep friendship with us.â 1Macc 10:20
The Christian Bible was originally translated from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. Jews had rendered this Greek translation necessary due to the increasing use of the Greek language in everyday life. In fact, many of the faithful could no longer read Hebrew. Aramaic and Greek had replaced the Hebrew language. Many books of the Apocrypha were in the Septuagint and became part of the Catholic scriptures. They were dropped from the King James Version in 1796.
Luke16:17> But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.
Peace, OneNow1
Did you know removing books from the bible is a not a good thing.
âNow therefore we make thee this day High Priest (Vicar of Christ) of thy nation, and that thou be called the Kingâs friend (and he sent them a Purple ROBE, and a CROWN OF GOLD (Miter)), and that thou be of one mind with us in our affairs, and keep friendship with us.â 1Macc 10:20
The Christian Bible was originally translated from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. Jews had rendered this Greek translation necessary due to the increasing use of the Greek language in everyday life. In fact, many of the faithful could no longer read Hebrew. Aramaic and Greek had replaced the Hebrew language. Many books of the Apocrypha were in the Septuagint and became part of the Catholic scriptures. They were dropped from the King James Version in 1796.
Luke16:17> But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.
Peace, OneNow1
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Shhhh, Protestants and the non-denom bible fundamentalists donât like to be reminded that Luther sacrificed a tithe of Godâs Word (7 full books) on the Altar Of Revolution just to seperate themselves from the authority and graces that God bestows through The Catholic Church. But itâs not without precedence though since Judas offered up the entire Living Word of God (Jesus) to be sacrificed by the Jews in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. It should come to no oneâs surprise if the usual patterns of betrayal and disobedience come to the same ends.
James
G
guanophore
Guest
I never said he was a bishop. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Some of the Apostles were married, but Paul was celibate. My point is that being married and having children is not a requirement for the office.
When you say things like âyour churchâ ja4, it gives the impression that you donât understand that there is only One Church. Such language is divisive. The intention of it seems to be to separate Christâs Body, of which we are all members.
The Catholic Church, having penned, preserved, and promulgated the NT, does not âignore the word of Godâ. We recognize that this is a discipline imposed for the construction of the Church. That discipline has changed over time, for many reasons. Bishops are âmarried menâ, they are married to the Bride of Christ, and are expected to be completely faithful to their vows. They are chosen from among those who are called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven. Such men are chosen so that their interests will not be divided, and they can give their full attention to caring for the flock.
The disciples noted that it might be better not to get married.
"The disciples said to him, âIf such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.â 11 But he said to them, âNot all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 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.â Matt 19:10-12
Not all are called to the life of celibacy. But, for those who are called, it is well for them to receive it. Do you see here that Jesus is authenticating the celibate lifestyle?
No, I think you got this jammed into one of your sulci by some anticatholic source, and it may take some sort of metaphorical crow bar to get it out. Priesthood does not equate with leadership. Celibacy does not equate with leadership. It is only like that in your mind.
In this context, ja4, the two cannot be separated. The central point of Paulâs teaching on celibacy was about what the man can focus on.
âI want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.â 1 Cor 7:32-35
A married man should give attention to his wife and his family. The celibate man is free of these types of anxieties, and can focus undivided attention to the matters of the Lord. It is from those who are called to this level of devotion that the Catholic Church seeks for the office of bishop.
J
justasking4
Guest
No so. I know the scriptures donât ever say that a church leader is to be celibate and single.
Do the Scriptures say this and if so where?
What iâm trying to understand is the basis for a celibate-unmarried- church leadership comes from. When i read the scriptures that a qualification for a bishop is to be married and i look at the Roman Catholic church that disqualifies married men from the start from even being considered to be bishops then we have a church that is putting its âtraditionsâ ahead of the Scriptures and nullifying the Word of God.
Not so. It exists in the catholic church itself.
J
justasking4
Guest
Where do you get the idea that bishops are the successors of the Apostles? The office an apostle is not the same as the office of a bishop. Is there any place in Scripture where we see an apostle specifically saying he is giving his office as apostle to someone else that is a bishop?
It is a requirement for being a bishop. See I Timothy 3.
Do you consider protestant churches real churches?
This is a twisting of the scriptures when you say âBishops are âmarried menâ, they are married to the Bride of Christâ. I Timothy 3 doesnât come close to saying that but is a reference to a manâ marital status of being married with children.
Your confusing the scriptures here. There is no connection in scripture for leadership that a bishop was to be a eunuch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is the context for your statementââeunuchs for the kingdomâ and how they can devote their full attention to God"?
What He is not doing here is âauthenticatingâ celibacy lifestyle for leadership.
Who is the head of your local parish when the bishop is not there? If you want to talk to someone in authority at your parish would you talk with a priest?
Is this reference referring to leadership in the church?
This goes against the scriptures again. This may sound noble buts its unscriptural and a tradition of men.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
No. Protestant Churches are âecceleastical communitesâ; not much more than religious clubs and religious hobbist reallly.
Parishes are run by priests and the laity staff - some volunteers some full time paid staff. Sometimes there are also attached holy orders (sisters and brothers and school principals etc.) too that support them in various capacities. If a priest is not present usually an assistant pastor (also a priest) takes over or a deacon etc. but most of the administrative functions are handled by staff.
The Bishop is the Bishop irrespective of where he is at physically. He also usually has a staff with or without religious men and/or women (priests, religious brothers and/or sisters) assigned to support him. Larger dioceses have an assistant bishop as well or sometimes the prior bishop who is elderly and retired from active service helps out when needed.
It only goes against your fallable interpretation of scripture. But even if it did what is your point? Catholics do not believe in the false teaching of sola scriptura. How many hundreds of times must we explain this to you? When Jesus gave power of loosing and binding He gave The Church to establish its own ecclesiastical practices. Where did you get your authority to challenge Godâs authority? Your insubordination is unbiblical.
H
Hisalone
Guest
What percentage of of Catholics do you believe hold these same views?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
No you are not trying to understand anything. You are here to buck Church Authority and try to promote the false teaching of Sola Scriptura over The Church. At least be honest. If you mean to ask about where scripture supports our tradition of requiring celibate priests and bishops (âas leadershipâ) read the following:
Scriptural support for celibacy of the priesthood:
James
J
justasking4
Guest
Then you can understand why the term âyour churchâ is so applicable. This is also why true unity will never exist between the roman catholic church and Protestant Churches.
My point is that a priest is looked upon as a leader and fulfills leadership roles.
Is your interpretation infallible?
How about another 5000?
Scripture. It warns us that false teachers will come into the church itself and decieve many.
Not if the authority is promoting unbiblical doctrines and practices then all Christians have a responsiblity to resist. If they donât then they are in partnership with these false teachers.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I question the sincerity of your question since you illicitly framed the question as if to assess the merits of my opinion on my own opinion - but on a matter that is not substantially an opinion but rather a Church position.
I probably should not have added the bit about âclubsâ since Catholics recognize most Protestant baptisms - but even Catholic Laity can administer those rites under emergency conditions since Christ is the one actually performing the spiritual aspects of the sacrament and we are just âthe voiceâ.
Truth is not subject to a âpercentage viewâ.
The document, âDominus Iesus,â which Cardinal Ratzinger signed (i.e. now Pope Benedict XVI) , framed the role of the Catholic Church in human salvation in an exclusive manner. It suggested that non-Catholic âecclesiastical communitiesâ were ânot churches in the proper sense.â
usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-06-16-pope-unity_x.htm
Dominus Iesus:
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
In the way you express that and mean that it becomes a blasphemy to suggest Christâs Church belongs to anyone but Christ. Can you show me where in scripture your pessimistic prophecy exists about those seperated brothers participating in protestant ecclesiastical communities are not going to convert back to Catholicism some day?Then you can understand why the term âyour churchâ is so applicable. This is also why true unity will never exist between the roman catholic church and Protestant Churches.
Wasnât Christ looked at as a leader? What is your point?
Isnât the lesbian minister Irene âBethâ Stroud accepted as a leader by her female domestic partner and her ecclesiastical community and teaching Godâs word before the Protestants changed the terms of her contract and dismissed her?
My interpretation is always made with respect to Church Interpretation. If you have seen a case where I have misstated it then please advise so I can correct.
Are you trying to earn indulgences while remaining in a condition of conspicuous disobedience to and defiance to The Church?How about another 5000?
You have to repent first before indulgences can work or you expose yourself to the grave capital sins of pride, spiritual sloth and even risk blaspheming the Holy Spirit (the one unforgivable sin) if you remain impenitent through death in that condition.
You are correct. Now take heed and stop following the false doctrine of sola scriptura and fallable personal teaching.
Then why are you promoting false doctrines such as sola scriptura. You are in direct and willful partnership with false teaching.
James
H
Hisalone
Guest
My guess is that a high percentage of Catholics who post on internet forums hols this view.
However only a very small percentage of Catholics post on internet message boards like this.
As a Non Catholic I wish more that fell the way you do would express themselves. In all sincerity.
You make my polemics to those that are undecided so much easier.
I will pray for your eternal soul.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
Rev.14
[1] Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Fatherâs name written on their foreheads.
[2] And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
[3] and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
[4] It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
[5] **and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless. **
Those âwho have not defiled themselves with womenâ, âit is these who follow the Lamb(Jesus) wherever He goesâŚthey are spotless.â
These are the priesthood of the Church.
The Lord Himself said:
"[37] He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
[38] and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. " (Matthew 10:37-38)
"[24] Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. "(Matthew 16:24)
Being married is hardly giving up the things of this world and following Him.
"[34] And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, âIf any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.â(Mark 8:34)
"[23] And he said to all, âIf any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.â (Luke 9:23)
Part of denying yourself and taking up His cross is choosing to deny yourself the the life you desire-a life of being a father and a husband-to the greater life of being consecrated to a holy life in service to God and His children. This is what is meant by âthose who have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.â The value of what they have given up -sacrificed-is surpassed by the value of the gift that they have received from God. It IS deeply biblical. You just have to open yourself up to it.
[1] Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Fatherâs name written on their foreheads.
[2] And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
[3] and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
[4] It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
[5] **and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless. **
Those âwho have not defiled themselves with womenâ, âit is these who follow the Lamb(Jesus) wherever He goesâŚthey are spotless.â
These are the priesthood of the Church.
The Lord Himself said:
"[37] He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
[38] and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. " (Matthew 10:37-38)
"[24] Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. "(Matthew 16:24)
Being married is hardly giving up the things of this world and following Him.
"[34] And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, âIf any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.â(Mark 8:34)
"[23] And he said to all, âIf any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.â (Luke 9:23)
Part of denying yourself and taking up His cross is choosing to deny yourself the the life you desire-a life of being a father and a husband-to the greater life of being consecrated to a holy life in service to God and His children. This is what is meant by âthose who have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.â The value of what they have given up -sacrificed-is surpassed by the value of the gift that they have received from God. It IS deeply biblical. You just have to open yourself up to it.
- Status