Priests and Divorce

[lak611]

Perhaps we are making a judgement where we should instead be giving the benefit of the doubt. I feel certain that not everyone who applies to become a priest ever becomes one, including men who have no previous public sins.

I think the whole issue is in regard to lack of understanding of what an annulment is. If a person has his or her marriage annulled, he or she did not commit a public sin. For whatever reason, the marriage was not valid. It had nothing to do with being in a state of grace at the time the vows were exchanged.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Michael;

Okay. And we both know that the Church is right, and that there is something defective in our own understanding.

Perhaps we are making a judgement where we should instead be giving the benefit of the doubt. I feel certain that not everyone who applies to become a priest ever becomes one, including men who have no previous public sins.

We both know that God is alway right, and that we are His Church. God did not say His Church would be perfect, as we witness in Old Testament and New Testament scandals, scandals of old, and present day scandals that are affecting God’s Church. This is not new to God’s kingdom, first Israel, then the Catholic Church.

Exodus 19:5-7 “‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.” So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him.

Judges 2:20 " So the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to My voice,”

Mt 23:1-4 "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.”

Mt 26:3 "Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas;

Mt 28:20 “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Even with Jesus present with us, all of us sin, including the Pope, other leaders of the Church, priests, lay persons.

Nicodemus was a leader who did not go along with the crowd, and tested things for himself with questions. As we hear, a ruler of God’s people did not understand some things. We do hear him asking to understand. And in John 19:39 we see where asking questions, to understand, led not to following what all the thinking of the Jewish leaders.
John 3:1-10 "1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?”
John 19:39 "Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.
So, I think there is excess baggage in the Church, starting with my own life.

Michael

 

[jmcrae]

Michael;

While it is certainly possible for Church members to sin, it is impossible for the Church ever to teach us incorrectly. Jesus made this promise to the Church in Matthew 16:18, as well as in other places.

 

[jmcrae]

I think the whole issue is in regard to lack of understanding of what an annulment is. If a person has his or her marriage annulled, he or she did not commit a public sin. For whatever reason, the marriage was not valid. It had nothing to do with being in a state of grace at the time the vows were exchanged.

Actually I was referring to the divorce, but I take your point - well said!!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Michael;

While it is certainly possible for Church members to sin, it is impossible for the Church ever to teach us incorrectly. Jesus made this promise to the Church in Matthew 16:18, as well as in other places.

 How do you read that the Church leadership will be infallible in teaching from that passage? What does other Scripture tell us, especially 4 verses later?
  Mt 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 
 Mt 116:22-23 "Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." 

  Mt 26:33-34 "But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away." Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." 

 Mt 26:73-74 "A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away." Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know the man!" And immediately a rooster crowed."

  Acts 5:3-5 "But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?

“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it."

 Act 5:29 "But Peter and the apostles answered, " We must obey God rather than men."

 Gal 2:11-14 "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

2 Tim 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

1 Tim 3:14-15 "I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
These verses show us the importance of what Paul wrote so that one will know how “to conduct himself in the household of God, … the pillar and support of the truth.” Interestingly, it is not only what Peter wrote, and in fact mostly what others besides Peter wrote, that form the bulk of what is “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Notice what Paul was talking about just before 1 Tim 3:14? Married priests?

Michael

 

[jmcrae]

Michael;

It sounds as though you don’t know the difference between impeccability (the inability to sin) and infallibility (the inability to teach error).

It is a certainty that Peter sinned - many times, and quite badly. It is also a certainty that Jesus chose him to be our first Pope (see John 21:15-19), and protected him from ever promulgating errors in doctrine and morality to the Church.

In addition, we know that this protection extended to his successors, just as Elijah’s charisms were passed down to Elisha, by the laying on of hands. Jesus alluded to this in Matthew 16:18 by quoting Isaiah 22:22, about the keys.

That’s how we can trust that the Bible (whose Table of Contents was finally completed in the late 300s, and early 400s, and which was finally promulgated to the whole Church by Pope Damasus, and later ratified by Pope Innocent I) contains all of the God-inspired books that exist, and none that are not.

Without the authority of the Pope, and the certainty that the Church cannot teach error, we don’t have a Bible, because the Bible comes from the Church, and was promulgated to the whole Church by the Pope.

If there is any chance that he could have been wrong, then there is also the chance that we have the wrong books in our Bible, and we can’t trust either one - the Church, or the Bible. But if we trust the Bible, then we also have to trust the Church.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Michael;

It sounds as though you don’t know the difference between impeccability (the inability to sin) and infallibility (the inability to teach error).

It is a certainty that Peter sinned - many times, and quite badly. It is also a certainty that Jesus chose him to be our first Pope (see John 21:15-19), and protected him from ever promulgating errors in doctrine and morality to the Church.

First thing Peter tries to do is to teach Jesus that He is wrong, verbally rebukes Jesus. Tried to teach Jesus, contrary to God’s will. In turn Peter is rebuked. This is not merely sinning, it is trying to correct another, teach another, in this case trying to teach Jesus.

Mt 16:22-23 "Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

That’s how we can trust that the Bible (whose Table of Contents was finally completed in the late 300s, and early 400s, and which was finally promulgated to the whole Church by Pope Damasus, and later ratified by Pope Innocent I) contains all of the God-inspired books that exist, and none that are not.

Without the authority of the Pope, and the certainty that the Church cannot teach error, we don’t have a Bible, because the Bible comes from the Church, and was promulgated to the whole Church by the Pope.

If there is any chance that he could have been wrong, then there is also the chance that we have the wrong books in our Bible, and we can’t trust either one - the Church, or the Bible. But if we trust the Bible, then we also have to trust the Church.

 We trust the Old Testament which God gave us, and that the high-priests were by the rules of God's people. And we know their authority was established by God: Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
 And we know that some of what they taught was condemned by Jesus as not being consistent with the Old Testament. Yet we do not condemn or question the authority of the Old Testament because of the errors in teaching of the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, and high-priests who condemned Jesus to death. We know God is faithful, despite the errors of us and our leaders/teachers. That in no way invalidates the authority or importance of the office of the Pope. Similarlly, an immoral president does not invalidate the authority or importance of the office of President.

Michael

 

[jmcrae]

First thing Peter tries to do is to teach Jesus that He is wrong, verbally rebukes Jesus.

Don’t be completely ridiculous. Peter was having an emotional reaction; he was not in any way trying to “teach” Jesus.

Mt 16:22-23 "Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

Jesus is responding to Peter’s emotional outburst, and commanding him not to tempt Him to avoid the Cross out of mere human sentimentality, because such temptation comes from Satan. He was not saying that Peter himself suddenly became Satan - that’s just silly.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Don’t be completely ridiculous. Peter was having an emotional reaction; he was not in any way trying to “teach” Jesus.

Jesus is responding to Peter’s emotional outburst, and commanding him not to tempt Him to avoid the Cross out of mere human sentimentality, because such temptation comes from Satan. He was not saying that Peter himself suddenly became Satan - that’s just silly.

The verse says "Mt 16:22-23 "Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.”

Took Him aside
began to rebuke Him
"God forbid it, Lord!

It’s a rebuke, trying to correct (teach) Jesus
Mirriam-Webster on line:
“Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·buked; re·buk·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
Date: 14th century
1 a: to criticize sharply : reprimand b: to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check”

Try to avoid “reactions” like “don’t be completely ridiculus”, or being dismissive and viewing this merely as an emotional reaction. Peter didn’t just react emotionally, he went to the effort to take Jesus aside, to rebuke Him.

Yes, Jesus did not say Peter himself became Satan. I quote sequential verses and you think I’m being silly and interpreting that as Peter having suddenly become Satan? So who is being silly?

My point is that we do not see in the verse in Matthew any promise of an infallible leader other than Jesus. And other verses demonstrate Peter’s fallability and hypocrisy.

Michael

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am sure that you are aware that we do not do private Scripture interpretation in the Catholic Church.

As well as the fact that we have Sacred Tradition.

---

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated in this thread as it is now closed.