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

[wmscott]

Actually, perpetuating falsehoods after numerous posters have provided you with correct information is not a respectful behavior.

Neither is your practice of refraining from reading sources provided to you because you don’t agree with them. It leaves other participants in the discussion with the impression that you are not really here to learn or have productive dialogue, but only to find fault and foster rankor and division.

I could not agree with you more, Dokimas has been stubbornly disingenuous in this and the original thread and furthers bolsters my assertion that there are some non-Catholics that feel the we are not Christian, we are wrong, we are to be lead away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that CHRIST established, that is God in His infinite wisdom from the very beginning, not man and certainly not men, who out of pride, coming along 1500 years later to do what God could not do. All this “the church is bigger than the people who make up the CC” & “God knew what he was doing and knew that there would be divisions” is just an excuse to be disobedient and separated from the true Body of Christ. Not to mention perpetuating falsehoods, slander, and lies. As I said in the original post, Dokimas is an example of some non-Catholics who in a roundabout way really is trying to evangelize Catholics and anyone considering Catholicism.

 

[KathleenGee]

I spent a hard time on MSNBC’s Newsvine…and the people were so hateful and deliberate and refusing to face facts…vulgur language…many of them were allowed to continue on that forum, but myself who supported pro life and spoke about the proclivity of homosexual acts causing diseases got me banned.

Going to sacramental confession helps my conscience to grow and realize that there are times I have to hear truths I don’t want to know because I have preconceived concepts. When someone is trying to tell me the truth and I refuse…then I am liable to judgment. This in reference to myself. And it is our duty as a Christian to look at the truth of our neighbor, including Catholic, celibate priests.

 

[wmscott]

I spent a hard time on MSNBC’s Newsvine…and the people were so hateful and deliberate and refusing to face facts…vulgur language…many of them were allowed to continue on that forum, but myself who supported pro life and spoke about the proclivity of homosexual acts causing diseases got me banned.

Going to sacramental confession helps my conscience to grow and realize that there are times I have to hear truths I don’t want to know because I have preconceived concepts. When someone is trying to tell me the truth and I refuse…then I am liable to judgment. This in reference to myself. And it is our duty as a Christian to look at the truth of our neighbor, including Catholic, celibate priests.

So you are the one individual in the U.S. that gives MSNBC the time of day

 

[Sir_Knight]

Catholics have no need to “justify” any pastoral decisions using scripture, since the pastoral authority of the Church preceded the Scripture. You make a good point that we sometimes get pressed into doing this for our separated brethren who are “bible based”. the Catholic Church is not a “bible based” Church. Our teachings come directly from Jesus, through the Apostles. They are reflected in the Scripture, which was written later, but Scripture is not the Source. Jesus is the Source.

:clapping: This is one of the best comments (MAYBE even the BEST comment) that I have EVER read on this forum.

 

[Dokimas]

Doki, are you going to derail this thread too? We got on this because we kept asking you if our discipline of priestly celibacy meant to you that we were not Christians, and therefore needed to be evangelized.

Now that we have a new thread that can just focus on whether celibacy is “forced” upon priests or not, you are going off on sexual abuse!

Just a bit curious – why are you accusing me of derailing this thread and bringing up sexual abuse when I was responding to someone’s post? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I answered your questions of celebacy over and over and over again. This is why we don’t get anywhere. BTW, I’ve acknowledged more than once that celebacy is encouraged by Paul. It’s not something that should be forced on a man who wants to serve His God as a pastor/priest.

 

[Dokimas]

Are you laboring under some false idea that the One True Church founded by Jesus would not suffer from human ailments? Don’t you realize the Church, like Christ, is incarnational in nature? It has both Divine and Human elements. Jesus grew tired, hungry, thirsty, etc. He was human, and experienced the effects of being human.

Likewise the Church has a human element, and suffers from the effects of humanity. This does not make the Church any less One, True, and founded by Christ, any more than His hunger, thirst, and fatigue made Him less God.

Doki, it sounds as though you are hurt and resentful. You are asserting falsehoods again.

You know quite well that the Church does not teach that the are the “only part”. You have already read the catechism on what the Church teaches about our separated brethren.

Furthermore, you have already been advised that the Church does not believe she :has all the correct answers". The Church has the Truth that has been revealed to her by God. God has not chosen to reveal “all the answers” to us. It is true that we can have complete confidence in what has been revealed.

You hit on the head the place the CC and Jesus parts ways: in His Humanity He NEVER sinned. In the CC’s humanity sin happens. Therefore, the CC and Jesus/Holy Spirit are not one and the same.

Nope not hurt or resentful. Nothing to be hurt about or to resent. Sorry to say you’re wrong about me again.​

Let me restate myself after your correction: the CC believes 100% of the answers she has are correct. Is that better?

 

[Dokimas]

The two are not mutually exclusive. But why are you avoiding the topic again? Now you we are back to the question on the thread we just left! do you think Catholics are not Christians because they believe Jesus’ founded a Church with an organization?

Any catholic that is ‘born again’ is a Christian. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know which protestants are either. That’s not my business. As I’ve said to you over and over and over again, I’m not saying any catholic (or protestant) aren’t Christian for what they believe about these non essentials.

Yes, it has leaders, and it is organized around them, ane yes, they do err in understanding and practice.

Thank you for your opinion.

The Church, however, cannot err in understanding or practice, because of her divine elements. She persists in all Truth in spite of the fallible men who are a part of her.

Thank you for your opinion (which seems to be contradictory compared to your very last statement about the leaders).

What I see is that you are again avoiding the topic thread, and you seem to be using a shotgun attack method of firing all kinds of anti-catholic accusations that are not at all related to the thread.

Responding to others is not avoiding the topic, FYI. You know that I’m not anti-catholic and some of your fellows have said that I’m not. I’m not sure why you’re shooting your gun at me. Perhaps it is you that is hurt and resentful. That’s the only thing that makes sense as you keep attacking.

 

[Dokimas]

Actually, perpetuating falsehoods after numerous posters have provided you with correct information is not a respectful behavior.

Neither is your practice of refraining from reading sources provided to you because you don’t agree with them. It leaves other participants in the discussion with the impression that you are not really here to learn or have productive dialogue, but only to find fault and foster rankor and division.

Not one encouraging word about being truthful.

From a person that most always disagrees with me and is condescending, your accusation that I don’t want to learn or I don’t want to have productive dialogue seems a bit hypocritical to me. That’s just my opinion from my observations.

 

[Dokimas]

Actually, you just asserted the opposite above. You agreed that there is abuse in non-catholic communities, then said “the difference is that we never claimed…”. The implication is that, if Catholic was what she claims, then the abuse would not be present.

You continue to read into what I say falsely. BTW, this is derailing the thread. Why are you continueing to do so?

As an aside, the abuse does not come “from within it”. These people have departed from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith by practicing sin. When they committed these sins, they broke their communion with the Church, and have placed themselves in a state of mortal sin. Abuse,like all sin, does not come from within what is Holy and perfect, but from that which is fallen.

Nice try. Not buying it though.

Again you are sounding hurt and angry Doki. I note that you are still not responding to the thread topic, but grinding your axe about what you perceive are the shortcomings of the Catholic faith.

Again you’re off topic. Again you have no clue about me even though I’ve made many things clear to you. This is not important but maybe this indicates you’re mistaken about more important matters.

It is curious that you would have these expectations about the Catholic Church, since you have already stated that you don’t believe the claim anyway. Why are you so upset that your expectations are not met?

Wrong understanding and opinion again.

Actually , **you sound like you **are let down and disappointed because the Catholic Church, in your estimation, has not done a good enough job of dealing with the sins of some of it’s leaders, and is not a better witness in the world.

Wrong again.

One cannot be let down, disappointed, hurt,and angry unless one has expectations that are dashed. I wonder why you have those?

I don’t have these nor do I have a clue about your comments about these emotions.

You’re in such an attack mode, I wonder if I’m hitting a ‘nerve’ and it’s you that are hurt and angry. Maybe you feel you’ve been let down so are the one that is disappointed. Just wondering.

 

[wmscott]

You hit on the head the place the CC and Jesus parts ways: in His Humanity He NEVER sinned. In the CC’s humanity sin happens. Therefore, the CC and Jesus/Holy Spirit are not one and the same.

Says who??? The authority of Dokimas sole speaker of Christianity??? How utterly absurd, how could you come to such an incredibly ignorant statement. Of course Christ was sinless, oh snap we agree on something, however Christ knew that we would always be sinners. His Church is not a home for saints but a hospital for sinners. If we all are sinners then guess what, by your same unfathomable logic, then your church, and every Christian church in existence has parted ways from Christ. Jesus/Holy Spirit are not to be found in any of them either. Don’t you see how ridiculous your statement is. This borderlines on lunacy.

 

[wanner47]

Dokimas – you said previously that “Sin is aweful”

Using my former example, how am I to know whether to follow the teachings of the ELCA or the Catholic Church? If I follow one, I’m sinning against the other. They can’t *both *be right since their teachings are so contradictory.

So how do I know?

 

[wmscott]

You hit on the head the place the CC and Jesus parts ways: in His Humanity He NEVER sinned. In the CC’s humanity sin happens. Therefore, the CC and Jesus/Holy Spirit are not one and the same.:

And another thing how do you expect anyone to take anything you have to say into consideration with outlandish statements like this:whacky:

 

[Dokimas]

Says who??? The authority of Dokimas sole speaker of Christianity??? How utterly absurd, how could you come to such an incredibly ignorant statement. Of course Christ was sinless, oh snap we agree on something, however Christ knew that we would always be sinners. His Church is not a home for saints but a hospital for sinners. If we all are sinners then guess what, by your same unfathomable logic, then your church, and every Christian church in existence has parted ways from Christ. Jesus/Holy Spirit are not to be found in any of them either. Don’t you see how ridiculous your statement is. This borderlines on lunacy.

Guanophore said so. I extended his comment to it’s logical conclusion. I thank him for his comment on the issue and thank you for letting me clarify it for you.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas – you said previously that “Sin is aweful”

Using my former example, how am I to know whether to follow the teachings of the ELCA or the Catholic Church? If I follow one, I’m sinning against the other. They can’t *both *be right since their teachings are so contradictory.

So how do I know?

I’m sorry I don’t have an opinion. I guess you should take it to God/the Holy Spirit. He’ll guide you I’m sure.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Perhaps we need to back up a step here. It may be that you have a very different understanding of the meaning of the term “eunuch”. If you think this passage is about divorce, then it may be the result of a semantics problem.

Can you provide your definition of “eunuch”, and explain what it has to do with divorce?

I didn’t think there was very much debate on that one. Here is what Webster says:

1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals

To put in the vernacular, some dude who cut his junk off.

It has to do with divorce in that what He said in effect that if you can’t remain faithful to your wife you are better off making yourself a eunuch. In the same way He said in another passage if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out. If that doesn’t make sense we are not on the same page here. What does it mean to you in its context? How do you get celibacy out of eunuch? I’m staring to think you might be right about having a semantics problem. To me this is one of the clearest passages in the Bible, but you are the second person to tell me it is talking about priesthood, now divorce/adultery. Perhaps we could save some time by explaining it to me. I just don’t see where He changes subjects. Is it not part of His answer to the disciples question?

You are right, of course, and it is not. There are many ministries in the Church, and most of them are perfomred by married lay persons. The ministerial priesthood is a very specific ministry that has certain qualifications.

I think you know what I mean. I understand that there are ministries performed by married people. I wasn’t talking about that.

Are you trying to be silly on purpose? I can’t tell.

What Jesus is saying is that those who make sacrifices for the Kingdom are rewarded, and eternal life is the biggest and best reward.

Of course. All work and no play makes Texasgringo a dull boy. The passage was quoted to me in support of the celibacy issue. I was just pointing out that the reference to eternal life makes it applicable to all who sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom, not just those who are celibate.

Both things are true. The passage is about celibacy, and there is also a general spiritual principle about sacrifice for the Kingdom.

I understand how the principle would apply to celibacy, but I don’t see where Jesus is talking about celibacy. I should have been from Missouri. Show me.

 

[Dokimas]

And another thing how do you expect anyone to take anything you have to say into consideration with outlandish statements like this:whacky:

Seems I didn’t make myself clear. What I was saying is that, as Guanophore said, the Church has a human side which I believe he said is where the sin of it’s members comes into play. Jesus’ humanity did not sin. Therefore, they are not one and the same.

 

[wmscott]

Guanophore said so. I extended his comment to it’s logical conclusion. I thank him for his comment on the issue and thank you for letting me clarify it for you.

No he did not, this is your statements. I did not get that from him at all. This is just your true anti-Catholic colors coming out.

 

[wmscott]

Seems I didn’t make myself clear. What I was saying is that, as Guanophore said, the Church has a human side which I believe he said is where the sin of it’s members comes into play. Jesus’ humanity did not sin. Therefore, they are not one and the same.

Then you understand very little about Christ, His Church, and Christianity.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Perhaps we need to back up a step here. It may be that you have a very different understanding of the meaning of the term “eunuch”. If you think this passage is about divorce, then it may be the result of a semantics problem.

Can you provide your definition of “eunuch”, and explain what it has to do with divorce?

I just wanted to add a little to my previous comments about this. I can see that you are equating eunuchs with celibates. Is that an official teaching of the Church? If so, I would disagree with that, but I know that won’t get me very far here. I briefly mentioned early on that the Church had banned eunuchs from the priesthood. I thought I would provide the reference for this if anyone was interested. It came from the the 1st counsel of Nicea Canon # 1:

But if anyone in good health has castrated himself, if he is enrolled among the clergy he should be suspended, and in future no such man should be promoted.

 

[Dokimas]

Then you understand very little about Christ, His Church, and Christianity.

Maybe so. I know I don’t understand everything.

I’m sure you can’t entertain the possiblity that it is you that lacks some understanding.