Priests who switch denominations

[lutheran_farmer]

This topic has gone off track.

When Catholic priests leave the Catholic Church, they are still priests. By joining another church, they are in a worse position because they are performing teh actions of a priest, but are not honoring their vows.

Celibacy in not compulsory. but nevertheless, comes from the bible in 1 Corinthians, Chapt. 7. Better yet, read this article:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-a-celibate-priesthood

It is a tradition of the Church. Like any vow or promise you make, if you do not honor it, I would think there would be consequences. By not only not honoring, but participating in religious ceremonies that are not in line with the faith you vowed to serve, you are doing further dishonor.

There is no need to bad-mouth Christian denominations or attack Martin Luther. The fact is that these priests broke their vows. Pray for them.

 

[South_Bound]

This topic has gone off track.

When Catholic priests leave the Catholic Church, they are still priests. By joining another church, they are in a worse position because they are performing teh actions of a priest, but are not honoring their vows.

Celibacy in not compulsory. but nevertheless, comes from the bible in 1 Corinthians, Chapt. 7. Better yet, read this article:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-a-celibate-priesthood

It is a tradition of the Church. Like any vow or promise you make, if you do not honor it, I would think there would be consequences. By not only not honoring, but participating in religious ceremonies that are not in line with the faith you vowed to serve, you are doing further dishonor.

There is no need to bad-mouth Christian denominations or attack Martin Luther. The fact is that these priests broke their vows. Pray for them.

So, if you take a vow to do something that you later come to believe is morally wrong, you should continue to do that which is morally wrong, even though you now believe it is wrong, just because you took a vow?

There is no “abortionist vow”, but say an abortionist takes a vow to perform abortions and, later, becomes a Catholic and comes to realize abortion is wrong, what should he do?

Shouldn’t he stop doing abortions?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Are these vows good human works or bad human works, since according to you…they are unbiblical?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

-]/-]

How do you know there is none?

Nowhere in scripture does Paul or Mary or anyone state they took a vow of celibacy, to speculate they did is silliness used to justify unnecessary and unbiblical practices.

 

[SyroMalankara]

-]/-]

Nowhere in scripture does Paul or Mary or anyone state they took a vow of celibacy, to speculate they did is silliness used to justify unnecessary and unbiblical practices.

There are many practices that are mentioned in Scripture explicitly that you don’t acknowledge - for example, the book of John explicitly mentions Hanukkah. They would have practiced the Liturgical rituals and prayers that go along with that. This would imply a strong connection between practices of the Jewish people and the Book of Maccabees, which you would deny canonical status.

Celibacy was practiced by some Jewish sects, and not by other, but was common enough to be not considered totally unique by the time of Christ, this is known through history and researching Judaic sources (Talmud, commentaries, etc):
andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1987-2/1987-2-02.pdf

There are vows in the Bible. When an individual - an educated individual especially - like Dr. Luther, freely chooses his vow - which Luther did - and was not forced into anything, makes his vow publicly - which Luther did - and solemnly. How is he then not bound until lifting is requested and granted?

 

[lutheran_farmer]

Morally wrong? Do you hate the Catholic Church that much? Let’s look at the priest who was scandalized and quit the Catholic Church. Do you honestly believe he thought it was morally wrong to be Catholic? Or, was he taking the easy road out? I will. say that I have much more respect for an honest Episcopalian than I have for for a scandalized Catholic priest that switched to another denomination.

 

[South_Bound]

Morally wrong? Do you hate the Catholic Church that much?

I assume you mean me, since I’m the only one who’s used the phrase “morally wrong”.

My question wasn’t about my feelings toward the Catholic Church or my opinion of the Catholic Church. I was merely asking if someone takes a vow to something - anything, Catholic Church, New York Yankees, whatever - and later comes to believe that thing is morally wrong, whether or not he has an obligation to honor his vow to something he believes is morally wrong, or whether he has a moral obligation to not do that which he has come to believe is morally wrong.

I believe I can ask a hypothetical question without “hating the Catholic Church”. Don’t you?

Let’s look at the priest who was scandalized and quit the Catholic Church. Do you honestly believe he thought it was morally wrong to be Catholic? Or, was he taking the easy road out?

I have no idea. But the next time he calls me, I’ll ask him about it.

 

[pablope]

So God would lay waste good works if a good work is not in the Bible?

And can you cite a passage that a good work is unnecessary if it is not in the Bible?

No. There is no vow of celibacy in the bible, so its unbiblical. No need to judge anything

.

But is somebody took to heart what ST. Paul taught about celibacy…is that being unbiblical?

But you are already making a judgement…are you not, is saying something is unbiblical?
You are then the final decision maker on what is biblical and unbiblical?

Absolutely my hero did a great service to mankind.

So splitting altars, dividing Christianity…is a great service to mankind, would you say?

Many folks joined monasteries against their will because they couldn’t inherit. Many monasteries had become more interested in being landlords then serving the poor and needy. Emptying them was a great service to man.

In this case, what is the Biblical thing to do…empty the monasteries, cause their downfall, cause disobedience…or to pray for reform and trust God to reform the monasteries?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Since the Roman Catholic Church refers to Martin Luther as a “witness to the Faith” it is likely that his excommunication will be lifted in 2017 at the Commemoration of the Reformation.

 

[pablope]

-]/-]

Nowhere in scripture does Paul or Mary or anyone state they took a vow of celibacy, to speculate they did is silliness used to justify unnecessary and unbiblical practices.

Again…who is to judge what is unbiblical and unnecessary? Are you the one with the final word on what is unbiblical or unnecessary?

And what is your standard for stating what is unbiblical or unnecessary?

 

[steido01]

Since the Roman Catholic Church refers to Martin Luther as a “witness to the Faith” it is likely that his excommunication will be lifted in 2017 at the Commemoration of the Reformation.

That would be… incredible.

Source?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

There are many practices that are mentioned in Scripture explicitly that you don’t acknowledge - for example, the book of John explicitly mentions Hanukkah. They would have practiced the Liturgical rituals and prayers that go along with that. This would imply a strong connection between practices of the Jewish people and the Book of Maccabees, which you would deny canonical status.

Irrelevant. No one expressly condemns anyone for refusing to celebrate a holiday, nor is the celebration of any holiday bound on any believer in the NT. In fact Paul expressly condemns condemning others for celebration or non celebration of any day or holiday.

Celibacy was practiced by some Jewish sects, and not by other, but was common enough to be not considered totally unique by the time of Christ, this is known through history and researching Judaic sources (Talmud, commentaries, etc):
andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1987-2/1987-2-02.pdf

If celibacy was practiced by Jewish sects, it wasn’t important enough for God to mention it in the scriptures, or make it binding on anyone in scripture, much less the Church or make such a state binding on anyone in the scriptures.

There are vows in the Bible. When an individual - an educated individual especially - like Dr. Luther, freely chooses his vow - which Luther did - and was not forced into anything, makes his vow publicly - which Luther did - and solemnly. How is he then not bound until lifting is requested and granted?

There are vows in the bible, there are no vows of celibacy in the bible. And no one is held bound to unbiblical vows.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Again…who is to judge what is unbiblical and unnecessary? Are you the one with the final word on what is unbiblical or unnecessary?

And what is your standard for stating what is unbiblical or unnecessary?

No, scripture has the final word, and the final authority always. Not me.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So God would lay waste good works if a good work is not in the Bible?

I don’t understand the question, could you rephrase it.

But is somebody took to heart what ST. Paul taught about celibacy…is that being unbiblical?

Paul never mentioned or taught that one should take a vow of celibacy.

But you are already making a judgement…are you not, is saying something is unbiblical?
You are then the final decision maker on what is biblical and unbiblical?

No. No more making a judgment than if I said that requiring someone believe in pink unicorns on mars is unbiblical. The scriptures no where mention pink unicorns or their living arrangements, no judgment is needed.

So splitting altars, dividing Christianity…is a great service to mankind, would you say?

His great service was preaching the gospel. That the Roman Catholic Church obstinately refused to give him a fair hearing is sad and unfortunate. Hopefully our altars will one day be reunited, even if its in the life to come.

In this case, what is the Biblical thing to do…empty the monasteries, cause their downfall, cause disobedience…or to pray for reform and trust God to reform the monasteries?

The biblical thing to do is to allow folks to follow their conscience. If they opt out of their monastery then more power to them.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So Luther had no part to play in his being excommunicated? It was all the fault of the Catholic church?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

That would be… incredible.

Source?

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/04/09/lutheran-pastor-meets-pope-francis-in-rome/

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

There is no evidence that any of these folks took a vow of celibacy.

That is not only false, but beside the point. The first issue is not whether such people were celibate by vow, but whether they were celibate at all. Luther says that celibacy is both impossible to keep and a sinful violation of God’s commandments. Obviously, the saints that I mentioned were celibate and did not sin. Scripture exalts virginity as a better state than marriage.

Your also said that something is “unbiblical” and not binding if there is no historical case of it mentioned in Scripture. There is no certain historical case of infant baptism in Scripture, but Lutherans still practice infant baptism and teach that it is necessary for salvation. Who are Lutherans to speak down to Baptists when Baptists refuse to practice something which is never explicitly practiced or mentioned in Scripture. The reason Lutherans practice it is because they can work it out from principles explicitly mentioned in Scripture. With celibacy, we know from Scripture that it is good and possible and that we ought to always keep our vows. Therefore, it follows that a vow of celibacy freely taken obliges to keep it. If I vow to pick up my little sister from school, I cannot abandon her because I don’t feel like it later and whine that it is not mentioned in the Bible and impossible to keep.

Finally, it is not true that the Bible does not speak of vowed celibacy. The Lord Jesus says in St. Matthew’s Gospel, There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Unless some sophist thinks that Christ is advocating bodily mutilation, the plain and true meaning of his words is that some will firmly and irrevocably resolve to keep themselves from women. Also, Jesus Christ vowed to remain celibate, unless you believe that he only remained unmarried accidentally. It is also clear that the Blessed Virgin Mary also intended to remain a perpetual virgin by her words, How shall this be done, because I know not man?.

If Martin Luther was too weak to uphold his vow before the Lord, he should have been honest enough to acknowledge that the fault lay within himself rather than in everyone else.

 

[GKC]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/04/09/lutheran-pastor-meets-pope-francis-in-rome/

Doesn’t seem to offer much support.

And odd little footnote.

GKC

 

[lutheran_farmer]

That is not only false, but beside the point. The first issue is not whether such people were celibate by vow, but whether they were celibate at all. Luther says that celibacy is both impossible to keep and a sinful violation of God’s commandments. Obviously, the saints that I mentioned were celibate and did not sin. Scripture exalts virginity as a better state than marriage.

Your also said that something is “unbiblical” and not binding if there is no historical case of it mentioned in Scripture. There is no certain historical case of infant baptism in Scripture, but Lutherans still practice infant baptism and teach that it is necessary for salvation. Who are Lutherans to speak down to Baptists when Baptists refuse to practice something which is never explicitly practiced or mentioned in Scripture. The reason Lutherans practice it is because they can work it out from principles explicitly mentioned in Scripture. With celibacy, we know from Scripture that it is good and possible and that we ought to always keep our vows. Therefore, it follows that a vow of celibacy freely taken obliges to keep it. If I vow to pick up my little sister from school, I cannot abandon her because I don’t feel like it later and whine that it is not mentioned in the Bible and impossible to keep.

Finally, it is not true that the Bible does not speak of vowed celibacy. The Lord Jesus says in St. Matthew’s Gospel, There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Unless some sophist thinks that Christ is advocating bodily mutilation, the plain and true meaning of his words is that some will firmly and irrevocably resolve to keep themselves from women. Also, Jesus Christ vowed to remain celibate, unless you believe that he only remained unmarried accidentally. It is also clear that the Blessed Virgin Mary also intended to remain a perpetual virgin by her words, How shall this be done, because I know not man?.

If Martin Luther was too weak to uphold his vow before the Lord, he should have been honest enough to acknowledge that the fault lay within himself rather than in everyone else.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

That is not only false, but beside the point. The first issue is not whether such people were celibate by vow, but whether they were celibate at all. Luther says that celibacy is both impossible to keep and a sinful violation of God’s commandments. Obviously, the saints that I mentioned were celibate and did not sin. Scripture exalts virginity as a better state than marriage.

Your also said that something is “unbiblical” and not binding if there is no historical case of it mentioned in Scripture. There is no certain historical case of infant baptism in Scripture, but Lutherans still practice infant baptism and teach that it is necessary for salvation. Who are Lutherans to speak down to Baptists when Baptists refuse to practice something which is never explicitly practiced or mentioned in Scripture. The reason Lutherans practice it is because they can work it out from principles explicitly mentioned in Scripture. With celibacy, we know from Scripture that it is good and possible and that we ought to always keep our vows. Therefore, it follows that a vow of celibacy freely taken obliges to keep it. If I vow to pick up my little sister from school, I cannot abandon her because I don’t feel like it later and whine that it is not mentioned in the Bible and impossible to keep.

Finally, it is not true that the Bible does not speak of vowed celibacy. The Lord Jesus says in St. Matthew’s Gospel, There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Unless some sophist thinks that Christ is advocating bodily mutilation, the plain and true meaning of his words is that some will firmly and irrevocably resolve to keep themselves from women. Also, Jesus Christ vowed to remain celibate, unless you believe that he only remained unmarried accidentally. It is also clear that the Blessed Virgin Mary also intended to remain a perpetual virgin by her words, How shall this be done, because I know not man?.

If Martin Luther was too weak to uphold his vow before the Lord, he should have been honest enough to acknowledge that the fault lay within himself rather than in everyone else.

That is not only false, but beside the point. The first issue is not whether such people were celibate by vow, but whether they were celibate at all. Luther says that celibacy is both impossible to keep and a sinful violation of God’s commandments. Obviously, the saints that I mentioned were celibate and did not sin. Scripture exalts virginity as a better state than marriage.

I believe there is a difference between choosing not to marry and taking a vow of celibacy. One is turning oneself off to Gods will. For example let’s say someone takes a vow of celibacy and later they choose to marry and God gives them someone to marry like my hero and Katharine Von Bora. Many folks in the 16th century were forced into celibacy and the monastic life due to their being unable to inherit. This is a grave injustice. Also, the bible doesn’t say celibacy is higher than marriage. In fact marriage is the first human institution created by God for humans.

Your also said that something is “unbiblical” and not binding if there is no historical case of it mentioned in Scripture. There is no certain historical case of infant baptism in Scripture, but Lutherans still practice infant baptism and teach that it is necessary for salvation. Who are Lutherans to speak down to Baptists when Baptists refuse to practice something which is never explicitly practiced or mentioned in Scripture.

Are you really sure you want to declare that infant baptism is not in scripture? That is not the position of your church nor of Catholic Answers.

With celibacy, we know from Scripture that it is good and possible and that we ought to always keep our vows. Therefore, it follows that a vow of celibacy freely taken obliges to keep it. If I vow to pick up my little sister from school, I cannot abandon her because I don’t feel like it later and whine that it is not mentioned in the Bible and impossible to keep.

We ought not to keep our vows if they were made under false pretenses or if they are unbiblical. There is no biblical vow of celibacy therefore it’s nonbinding on any believer.

Finally, it is not true that the Bible does not speak of vowed celibacy. The Lord Jesus says in St. Matthew’s Gospel, There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Unless some sophist thinks that Christ is advocating bodily mutilation, the plain and true meaning of his words is that some will firmly and irrevocably resolve to keep themselves from women. Also, Jesus Christ vowed to remain celibate, unless you believe that he only remained unmarried accidentally. It is also clear that the Blessed Virgin Mary also intended to remain a perpetual virgin by her words, How shall this be done, because I know not man?.

There are some that choose not to marry sure. But there is no mention of any vow of celibacy taken by Jesus or Mary.