Split from "A question for some Protestants who try to proselytize Catholics": Are Catholic priests "Forbidden to Marry?"

[Nicea325]

I guess you’re wrong about what my response would be. Don’t you ‘guys’ get tired of thinking wrong thoughts about some here? This is really what’s getting old!!!

Dokimas, still love you brother! Trust me, even though we differ on several issues,we are still brothers in Christ. BTW: I never have said to you, peace and blessings.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, still love you brother! Trust me, even though we differ on several issues,we are still brothers in Christ. BTW: I never have said to you, peace and blessings.

I’m confused . Have you still never said to me, ‘peace and blessings’ or were you saying, ‘peace and blessings’ to me with your statement that you’ve never said it to me?

It’s a great blessing to be a brother of anyone IN Christ. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m confused . Have you still never said to me, ‘peace and blessings’ or were you saying, ‘peace and blessings’ to me with your statement that you’ve never said it to me?.

LOL! Of course Nicea was offering you Christian love and saying, since he hadn’t said it earlier, “Peace and blessings to you, dear brother in Christ, Dokimas!”

 

[wanner47]

I read the highlighted part before and now and still wondering why?

What’s difficult to understand about there being Scriptural precedence for requiring celibacy for certain religious groups?

 

[Dokimas]

LOL! Of course Nicea was offering you Christian love and saying, since he hadn’t said it earlier, “Peace and blessings to you, dear brother in Christ, Dokimas!”

Am I a mouse getting sized up by the cats in the house?

Thank you, PR. And God be with and bless you and your wonderful family.

 

[Dokimas]

What’s difficult to understand about there being Scriptural precedence for requiring celibacy for certain religious groups?

What’s difficult about the NT showing us that Jesus and Paul made it clear married men should be allowed to serve as pastors, priest, bishops, etc.?

I see no where in the NT that widows are to be made pastors, priests, bishops, etc. I know you aren’t saying that, but we are looking at the NT to see if there is precedence for men to be married and be pastors, priests, bishops, etc. Of course there is. Married and celibate are BOTH accepted in the NT. These are the earliest of church fathers.

 

[PRmerger]

Am I a mouse getting sized up by the cats in the house?

Thank you, PR. And God be with and bless you and your wonderful family.

I believe it was guanophore who said this originally, and I concur:
We all should give you credit for “taking on” a bunch of Catholics pretty much all by yourself. It takes a lot of nerve to be the minority opinion in the group. :bowdown:

And, as you’ve survived thus far with nary a suspension from the Mods, you get credit for being able to express your arguments without being rude.

Don’t know if you’ve been in on some dialogues with other non-Catholic Christians, but there are many, many who can not provide thoughtful discourse without attacking Catholics. They are rude and end up getting banned rather quickly. (But not always: see this post to see the rudest thing I’ve ever had to deal with; and this lady did not receive a suspension.)

Of course, there are also Catholics who get rude and disrespectful as well. :sad_yes:

(And please don’t get offended by the “bowing down” icon. It’s a tongue-in-cheek way to say, “Kudos to you!”. Catholics do not worship anyone except God. Let’s not go there, 'kay! )

 

[wanner47]

What’s difficult about the NT showing us that Jesus and Paul made it clear married men should be allowed to serve as pastors, priest, bishops, etc.?

I see no where in the NT that widows are to be made pastors, priests, bishops, etc. I know you aren’t saying that, but we are looking at the NT to see if there is precedence for men to be married and be pastors, priests, bishops, etc. Of course there is. Married and celibate are BOTH accepted in the NT. These are the earliest of church fathers.

Why would it be acceptable to require celibacy for one religious group but not another?

If it were mandatory for religious leaders to marry, both Paul and Jesus would be married. However, they weren’t, and Paul is careful to emphasize that celibacy is an optimal state for those who are able to accept that gift.

 

[Teneas]

Apparently it’s a matter of definition. Perhaps Dokimas would understand more if it was put like this:

It’s a requirement that needs to be fulfilled in order to become a priest in the Catholic Church. It’s not forced, they are more than willing to not be a priest in the Church if they so choose. They are not forced into the priesthood, it’s a choice. I highly doubt that you will get it, or stop your senseless retaliation against it. As always, when dealing with you, you simply can’t just accept something from us without taking it offensively. If you don’t agree with it, it’s noted, and until you can actually form a decent argument against, you should stop. It paints a poor picture of yourself. No offense meant, just the truth (to quote you) IMO

 

[Nicea325]

I’m confused . Have you still never said to me, ‘peace and blessings’ or were you saying, ‘peace and blessings’ to me with your statement that you’ve never said it to me?

It’s a great blessing to be a brother of anyone IN Christ. Thank you.

Well basically, I have never said: peace and blessings at all…and shame on me!

I know you are a God loving Christian and believe me,my intentions are not to insult your faith or the congregation you follow. If I have come across as rude and disrespectful,then I owe you an apology.

Peace!

 

[Dokimas]

Well basically, I have never said: peace and blessings at all…and shame on me!

I know you are a God loving Christian and believe me,my intentions are not to insult your faith or the congregation you follow. If I have come across as rude and disrespectful,then I owe you an apology.

Peace!

I think I said it best when I said, “It’s a great blessing to be a brother of anyone IN Christ. Thank you.”

 

[guanophore]

If the US Naval academy won’t let anyone in that is married, then yes.

At least your illogical approach is consistent! But, no. the USNA does not have the authority to “forbid marriage”, any more than the Catholic Church does. However, they, like the CC, choose from among those without family responsilities to enroll for service.

The candidates make a free choice. If attendance at USNA is important enough to them, then they will delay or forego family obligations.

But there is nothing in the Bible about going to the US Naval academy.

No, and there is nothing in the bible that prohibits the CC from choosing from among those called to celibacy to serve.

There is quite a bit in the Bible about pastoring God’s sheep. Marriage in permitted by Jesus and the NT writer, Paul, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Which is why the CC supports marriage as a Holy Sacrament, and a full time vocation.

Seems you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not sure I mentioned anything about a double standard. Could you be very specific and show me where I did this? If you can’t I’ll be forever lost in this corner.

You are using a double standard. You know that Protestant ecclesial communites have certain specific requirements for pastors that are not found in scripture. Yet, you accuse the CC of being “unbiblical” when we have such requirements.

You applied the same standard to the USNA, though, so you are not using a double standard there!

You conclusion, however, is false. The USNA cannot “forbid marriage” any more than the CC can.

BTW, I know there are married pastors and unmarried pastors. Both are welcome in protestant churches. Some seminarians get married others stay single. And if they made it through, they can be ordained to pastor. Both are acceptable. (I’m trying to find the double standard; I just can’t find it. Looking back I found question to me off topic, though.)

Seminary, for one. Can a person serve if they don’t “make it through” ? If not, are you not “forbidding” such persons from serving as pastors? Why should graduation from seminary be forced upon these people?

 

[guanophore]

Of course I acknowledge you have a point of view and that it differs from mine.

That is progress. Are you able to articulate it, and demonstrate where we get it? Acceptance is not the issue.

Are you willing to say that you see why I say that the NT makes provision for pastors, bishops, priest, etc. to be married or single?

Absolutely!

I can even see where people think it means marriage is required.

Correct. Are you surprised? This issue is clearly spelled out in the NT and the CC does not follow it, IMO.

No, not really. It was becoming increasingly clear that your belligerance on this issue is related to a rejection of the authority appointed by Christ.

I think the vast majority of rebellion against the CC teaching boils down to a rejection of authority.

Americans in particular seem to have these types of authority problems. It seems to be a reflection of the rebellion against authority upon which the United States was founded.

I doesn’t fulfill the Bible’s teaching on the subject.

No. Nor does it claim to.

The bible is not able to “teach”, Doki, since teaching is an activity that requires a person. People who think they are taught by Scripture are actually reaching their own conclusions (teaching themselves) based on what they read. Most believe they are “led by the HS”, but the HS does not lead an individual in an opposite direction than He does the Church He founded.

A rose is a rose is a rose.

Indeed, and a daisy is never a rose, except in the mind of the intractible.

Your response falls short; it is only true to a point. You’re not acknowledging the rest.

Was there some point at which you thought Christ was NOT teaching with His actions, as well as His words?

People you think priests should not get married believe they are led by the Holy Spirit, too. Same meaning as you had applies here.

I am not sure that I am understanding this very well. Yes, people are led by the HS that think they should be priests, but are not chosen.

Thanks for your opinion. Mine is different.

The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. It makes most sense when interpreted within the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

. So, you wrongly accuse me of saying or believing something I did not say nor do I believe.

It is interesting that you seem to object to this, but when we say that we do not forbid marriage, instead of accepting what we actually believe, you insist that what we are saying is wrong.

. I don’t think ALL men are forced to be celibate, because they are able to be celibate and not sin. It 's not those men I’m referring to.

Perhaps you can produce one that has been forced to be celibate, so that we can meet and discuss this with him? You see, none of us has ever met such a person, since it does not exist within the CC.

Let me try again. I do NOT believe Jesus is against priest not being married. I believe the NT is against anyone to be forced to be celibate by an organization that claims to be from God.

Your faith is very Catholic in this matter. This is exactly what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

Oh trust us all here,we have told Dokimas a billion times it is a discipline and not forced. But he continues to insist it is forced. He must have been a child who kept on sticking his hands over and over in the fire…:whacky:

It is clearly an authority issue. He thinks the USNA has more authority that the CC. He rejects the apostolic authority preserved in the CC to bind and loose, bottom line.

What’s difficult about the NT showing us that Jesus and Paul made it clear married men should be allowed to serve as pastors, priest, bishops, etc.?

Nothing at all! There is nothing that theologically prevents married persons in ordained positions.

we are looking at the NT to see if there is precedence for men to be married and be pastors, priests, bishops, etc. Of course there is. Married and celibate are BOTH accepted in the NT. These are the earliest of church fathers.

Indeed, which is why the Catholic Church teaches this, and it is a good example of why there is no contradiction between Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Dokimas]

That is progress. Are you able to articulate it, and demonstrate where we get it? Acceptance is not the issue.

Absolutely!

I can even see where people think it means marriage is required.

No, not really. It was becoming increasingly clear that your belligerance on this issue is related to a rejection of the authority appointed by Christ.

I think the vast majority of rebellion against the CC teaching boils down to a rejection of authority.

Americans in particular seem to have these types of authority problems. It seems to be a reflection of the rebellion against authority upon which the United States was founded.

No. Nor does it claim to.

The bible is not able to “teach”, Doki, since teaching is an activity that requires a person. People who think they are taught by Scripture are actually reaching their own conclusions (teaching themselves) based on what they read. Most believe they are “led by the HS”, but the HS does not lead an individual in an opposite direction than He does the Church He founded.

Indeed, and a daisy is never a rose, except in the mind of the intractible.

Was there some point at which you thought Christ was NOT teaching with His actions, as well as His words?

I am not sure that I am understanding this very well. Yes, people are led by the HS that think they should be priests, but are not chosen.

The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. It makes most sense when interpreted within the Catholic faith.

And you are consistent. You aren’t accurate about what I say at times. You are condescending. You know your doctrine and can’t see anything else. There’s no point answering anything specifice for the reasons I’ve just stated unless someone else is interested in asking me to clarify what I’ve said.

 

[Dokimas]

Nothing at all! There is nothing that theologically prevents married persons in ordained positions.

Misleading.

Indeed, which is why the Catholic Church teaches this, and it is a good example of why there is no contradiction between Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Again, misleading; we were told that catholic seminaries will allow married men. This next statement acknoledges this and goes the next step. Catholic seminaries only choose single men that are willing to vow celibacy to finish their education and become priests. They must remain celibate to remain priests. That’s the parts you are leaving out. That’s the part that seems to contradict Scriptures. How can a bishop only have one wife (If he gets married) if he’s told to remain a priest, he must remain single? Context tells us it’s just fine for him to have zero wives as well (I better put that in just so you can’t distort what I say and tell me I believe this verse forces one wife on a bishop.)

 

[guanophore]

And you are consistent. You aren’t accurate about what I say at times. You are condescending. You know your doctrine and can’t see anything else. There’s no point answering anything specifice for the reasons I’ve just stated unless someone else is interested in asking me to clarify what I’ve said.

Yes, it is true that I do sometimes misunderstand what you write, or any member writes. Sometimes I just have to respond that I don’t understand. Sometimes I respond to what I think it being said.

I do also fall into the sin of condescesion at times, and I beg your forgiveness.

Sometimes, it seems condescending to people when Catholics adhere to teaching of the Church. In that sense, I cannot apologize. The Church is what she claims to be, and it is not condescending, it is the Truth.

I am sure I have a lot to learn about doctrine, which is one reason I am here. However, you are wrong that I “can’t see anything else”. I have made it clear in my posts that I understand how people come up with theologies that are a departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught.

I can even see why you come up with the incorrect notion that the Catholic Chruch forbid priests to marry. It makes sense to me. There are a number of errant theologies out there, and I can see how they arrive at them. I have sat with the JW’s and read the verses they use to support their heresies.

Are you saying that I cannot see different points of view because I am pressing you to see a different point of view, and you don’t want to do it?

 

[guanophore]

Misleading.

How is this misleading? This is the Teaching of the Apostles, the Teaching of the Church. There is nothing that theologically prevents a married person from becoming a deacon, priest, or bishop. That has been the case since the birth of the Church on Pentecost!

Again, misleading; we were told that catholic seminaries will allow married men. This next statement acknoledges this and goes the next step. Catholic seminaries only choose single men that are willing to vow celibacy to finish their education and become priests.

I am not sure this is an accurate statement. People enter seminary that finish their studies, and yet choose not to pursue the priesthood. However, most seminaries are geared toward fostering the celibate life in those who are candidates for priesthood, so people are able to make the decision as early as possible. This spiritual formation is part and parcel of the academic studies.

Not everyone in the seminary is there to become a priest.

They must remain celibate to remain priests.

If this were a true statement, there would not be such a gross scandal of sexual abuse. In fact, far too many priests are sexually active and remain priests. I just heard on the news yesterday that a case is being brought by a priest that fathered three children with two different women,a nd that they had no idea he was even a priest!

That’s the parts you are leaving out. That’s the part that seems to contradict Scriptures. How can a bishop only have one wife (If he gets married) if he’s told to remain a priest, he must remain single?

Some people are married when they receive the call to become priests. They agree not to take another if their wife dies, or leaves them. They are considered married to the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Context tells us it’s just fine for him to have zero wives as well (I better put that in just so you can’t distort what I say and tell me I believe this verse forces one wife on a bishop.)

I appreciate that. This context is often missed, and many modern evangelicals read it and think being married and having children is a required element.

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes, it seems condescending to people when Catholics adhere to teaching of the Church. In that sense, I cannot apologize. The Church is what she claims to be, and it is not condescending, it is the Truth.

Exactly.

It’s like when a Math teacher corrects an English teacher and says, “No, English Teacher, 2 + 2 = 4, not 5” and the English teacher responds, “Well, you just think you’re right–that’s arrogant and condescending!”

No…it’s simply proclaiming a truth. It may be distasteful to hear that one is wrong, and mistakenly assign arrogance to the Truth-speaker, but it is* not* condescending to proclaim the truth.

 

[jmcrae]

I read the highlighted part before and now and still wondering why?

Christian widows (a class of persons in leadership of the Church - not preaching or sacraments in public liturgy, but still a teaching role with children and younger women) were commanded by St. Paul to remain celibate, rather than remarry.

The Church does not command all single men to remain celibate. However, when a single man, of his own free will, makes a commitment to celibacy, the Church may (though not always, depending on other factors) invite him to attend Seminary to see if he can become a priest.

The point is, the man himself has made the choice. Unlike St. Paul’s widows, no one is commanding them to be celibate - they have chosen freely to be celibate.