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

[Dokimas]

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.

I got it from him.

No anti-catholic, william.

 

[wanner47]

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.

See, I did just that, and the Holy Spirit guided me to the Catholic Church.

However, it seems the Holy Spirit has guided you in a different direction.

Since the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Truth, naturally one of us is wrong.

So how do we know who is really being led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Dokimas]

See, I did just that, and the Holy Spirit guided me to the Catholic Church.

However, it seems the Holy Spirit has guided you in a different direction.

Since the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Truth, naturally one of us is wrong.

So how do we know who is really being led by the Holy Spirit?

First of all we both could be wrong. Secondly, we both could be correct.

We both could be in the place God does NOT want us or we both would be in the place God wants us.

You, a catholic, and me a non-catholic Christian do NOT have to be contradictory. It’s only contradictory if one of believes ours is the only correct way.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First of all we both could be wrong. Secondly, we both could be correct.

We both could be in the place God does NOT want us or we both would be in the place God wants us.

You, a catholic, and me a non-catholic Christian do NOT have to be contradictory. It’s only contradictory if one of believes ours is the only correct way.

So you’re saying that even though we have contradictory views of truth, that ‘your’ truth could be right for you and ‘my’ truth could be right for me.

Congratulations. . .you’re a relativist. No absolute truth need apply to your door. You don’t have to follow the ‘right’ way, you need only follow what way you ‘choose’ (none of them being ‘right’ but all containing ‘pieces of right.’)

One would think that at the LEAST then you would be letting us alone because by your logic, we’re on a ‘right road’.

Oh, I see your problem though.

If we claim truth, we have shattered your comfy (but false) image of ‘all roads lead to the Spirit, so it doesn’t matter which you take, all that matters is your PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP to God.’

But if your personal relationship is built on error, how much of a relationship is it?

 

[Dokimas]

So you’re saying that even though we have contradictory views of truth, that ‘your’ truth could be right for you and ‘my’ truth could be right for me.

Congratulations. . .you’re a relativist. No absolute truth need apply to your door. You don’t have to follow the ‘right’ way, you need only follow what way you ‘choose’ (none of them being ‘right’ but all containing ‘pieces of right.’)

One would think that at the LEAST then you would be letting us alone because by your logic, we’re on a ‘right road’.

Oh, I see your problem though.

If we claim truth, we have shattered your comfy (but false) image of ‘all roads lead to the Spirit, so it doesn’t matter which you take, all that matters is your PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP to God.’

But if your personal relationship is built on error, how much of a relationship is it?

Again, you are wrong about what I’m saying. Truth is not relative. Jesus is the Truth.

I’m not saying there’s different truth. I’m saying it is true that the Holy Spirit can and does lead differently. Someone are lead to Africa by the Holy Spirit and another to South America. Is the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself? Or is one lead by the Holy Spirit and one definitely not?

 

[wmscott]

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.

There is plenty that I lack understanding on, I am not perfect and I do not know everything. There I admit it, I don’t have a problem doing so.

But I do know that if I do not have all the answers I do know where to go to get them. I just ascribe to the flavor of the month and taut it as the truth. For example as to what I do have an understanding on. is your false assertions you have unceasingly made about the CC forbidding marriage and forcing Catholic to fast citing 1 Timothy 4. How do I know I have the proper understanding? Because I researched 1 Timothy 4, found out who Timothy was talking to and about, cross referenced it with Catholic Commentary, the CCC, and the dictionary. In all of these, it undeniably proved your assertion false and as you have stated several times, “It is my opinion”. I provided the references to you and you refused to read them. You even stated that you did not. The problem is you value your opinion over the truth. You cant even cite any other source other than your mistaken private misinterpretations of the Bible. How do you think this is credible.

 

[wanner47]

First of all we both could be wrong. Secondly, we both could be correct.

We both could be in the place God does NOT want us or we both would be in the place God wants us.

You, a catholic, and me a non-catholic Christian do NOT have to be contradictory. It’s only contradictory if one of believes ours is the only correct way.

I don’t see how we could both be right. For example, either abortion is a sin, or it’s not. It can’t be sinful for me but not sinful for you. Either abortion offends God, or it doesn’t.

Anything else is moral relativism.

 

[guanophore]

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.

We are all responsible to follow the forum rules and to help each other in that duty. You and I continued this discussion about priestly celibacy until the thread was closed for getting off topic.

If someone else on the thread strays off topic, we need to help one another get back on. If you feed into it, it looks like you have a motive for avoiding the topic. In the last thread, it looked like you were persistently avoiding the topic of whether Catholics needed to be evangelized. You were repeatedly confronted about not responding to the topic, and became defensive when you were asked if your comments on priestly celibacy meant that you thought Catholics were not Christian.

This new thread was created so that the issue of priestly celibacy could be addressed. You did not relate your comments back to the topic.

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.

The reason we are not getting anywhere, Doki, is because you stubbornly cling to your perceptions, rather than what we are telling you about the Teaching of the Church.

You are right, and the Catholic Church teaches that celibacy is valued,but that it CANNOT BE FORCED on anyone, because it is a gift of God, and gifts of God CANNOT BE FORCED ON ANYONE.

There are many pastoral ministries that are available to everyone in the royal priesthood of believers. The ministerial priesthood is something that not many are called to do.

Not one encouraging word about being truthful.

God bless you Doki for taking responsibility for your temper, offering an apology, and being honest about your points of view. You are taking on a crowd of fanatical Catholics pretty much all by yourself.

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.

It is not my intention to be condescending, so I apologize if I came across that way.

However, people that are interested in learning do not just stop reading information because it does not agree with their opinion. They will also at least accept another point of view, even if they don’t agree with it. Instead of accepting how we see things, you keep insisting on your point of view. This looks like a refusal to learn and accept. No one is asking you to submit to the discpline of the Cahtolic Church to choose from among those called to celibacy for the priesthood. But it would be helpful if you could accept that those who wish to become priests and deacons freely accept this discipline as part of their preparation for service.

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.

No, the CC cannot “part ways” with Jesus because the CC is His Holy Bride. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her holy and infallible.

Yes, humans attached to the Church sin, but the Church cannot sin. He has betrothed her to Himself. She is His Bride.

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

Suffice to say that your responses reflect a person who is hurt and resentful.​

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

No. The gift of infallibility applies to the teaching and care of the flock. The Church is divinely protected from teaching error in faith and morals.

The Church has no protection from fallibility in the areas of science, philosophy, etc, etc.

 

[guanophore]

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

The gift of infallibility does not apply to individuals, but the the Church as a Body. Individual leaders make mistakes all the time. Remember the words of James when they emerged from the Council of Jerusalem, “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. This is the cooperative nature of the gift of infallibility. The HS guides the magesterium so that error is prevented.

Responding to others is not avoiding the topic, FYI.

Sure it can be. And in your case, it was on the last thread. It appears that you are repeating that pattern here.

 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.

You have stubbornly refused to accept what we are saying about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and are forcing your anti-Catholic perspective upon us.
Since the Catholic Church penned the NT, there is nothing in it that contradicts the Catholic faith.

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

It may be that you are unable to discuss the topic, because you are too invested in finding fault wherever you have a chance? You are right, I think the whole rabbit trail into the abuse issue is a way of avoiding the thread topic.

Nice try. Not buying it though.

That’s ok, because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not for sale.

Jesus taught that those who turn their back on him will be denied. They separate themselves from the Vine, and their end is near to being burned.

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.

Perhaps so, but it does not change how you are coming across. You present yourself as one who is unwilling to accept other’s points of view.

Wrong understanding and opinion again.

It is interesting that you have judged my perceptions and opinions as 'wrong". Actually, it pretty much proves my point, that you are intolerant of other’s points of view. The fact is, you are coming across as a person who is hurt and resentful. Now it may be that you don’t intend to present yourself that way, and maybe you don’t wish to be perceived as a person who only wants to take pot shots, and not learn. However, this is how at least one other person interprets your remarks.

Wrong again.

Well, Doki, you are out of bounds here. You do not get to decide for me how your posts sound. Maybe you don’t want to present yourself this way, but this is how you sound.
If you are communicating a sentiment that is not accurate, then you may want to consider expressing yourself differently.

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.

No, I do not expect Catholics to be perfect, so when they fall short, I don’t need to accuse and find fault with them. It is true, I am disappointed when anyone (including myself) who claims to be long to Christ falls into sin, but I do not declare that the Church is not His HOly Bride because some people fall short.

 

[guanophore]

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, Doki,in fact you appear to have missed my point. My point is that the Church is incarnational, just as Jesus is. she has a human and divine natures. It is not her divine nature that falls short, but the human. Humans falling short cannot make divinity fall short.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I guess I am not making this leap. Jesus is saying that it is unlawful to divorce, and the apostles make a wrong assumption. They assume that “it is better not to marry”. However, this is not what Jesus is saying. He has not yet poured out His Spirit, and they do not yet understand that “they can do all things” through Christ, who strengthens them.

Jesus is not saying that if you can’t remain faithful, you should cut off your genitals. He is saying that celibacy is a gift. It seems to me that He is actually contradicting their assumption. He is saying that those who are called to celibacy should accept it.

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?

You are right, we are not on the same page.

Please help me understand what you think He means when He says “make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom”.

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.

The Apostles made a wrong turn. They are assuming that, since marriage is difficult, it is better not to marry. Jesus nowhere supports this assumption. On the contrary, He teaches that men should not put asunder what God has joined. This is how we understand marriage as a sacrament. It is the grace of God, which joins the couple, that enables them to surmount the problems that occur in marriage. One is not to flee from the commitment, but to receive the grace of God that can overcome all sins.

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?

I agree that it is an answer to their question, but it seems to me that it is they who changed subjects, not He.

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

Ok. I have had this discussion with some of our separated brethren that don’t seem to understand that the priesthood is a very specific kind of ministry, and that it is not the only opportunity for ministry and leadership in the Church.

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.

Glad we are on the same page about SOMETHING!

I understand how the principle would apply to celibacy, but I don’t see where Jesus is talking about celibacy.

When the Apostles say “it is better not to marry”, how do you understand this? Surely you don’t think they would embrace sexual activity outside of marriage? Does it not mean they think it is better to be celibate?

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?

Just the ones that “make themselves eunuchs for the kknngom”. I don’t read that as someone mutilating their genitals, but making a choice not to use them for their natural purpose. Do you understand it differently?

I don’t equate the historical role of the eunuch as celibacy. In fact, the eunuch that was approached by Phillip was castrated so that he could guard the King’s harem. Those men did have intercourse with the women, but could not impregnate them. This was so they could assure that all the women who got pregnant carried the royal seed. Those men were made eunuchs by someone else.

I am not sure about some that are born that way. Some say that it is people who are born with various genital conditions that make them infertile. Some say that persons who are born homosexual and are obligated to celibacy are referenced here. How do you think a eunuch is “born that way”?

 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.

Well, let us explore, and see how far we get!

 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.

Do you know the reason for this?

The Apostles taught that sexual self control should come from the HS. If a person has to mutilate himself to avoid sexually acting out, then it is interpreted as an incomplete reliance upon the HS.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Sure! As you have pointed out, “we all know in part”…

First of all we both could be wrong. Secondly, we both could be correct.

As individuals, certainly. However, as Catholics, we can have assurance that we are in the Truth. If we embrace what God has revealed to the Church, we can be confident that we are right. We can embrace the Truth even if we don’t understand it, and still have this confidence. That is why study is faith, seeking understanding.

We both could be in the place God does NOT want us or we both would be in the place God wants us.

You, a catholic, and me a non-catholic Christian do NOT have to be contradictory. It’s only contradictory if one of believes ours is the only correct way.

I know that God uses Protestant ecclesial communities to draw people to HImself. However, Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. He does not want us to be separated this way. The separations have occurred because of the abandonment of the Truth.

 

[Dokimas]

There is plenty that I lack understanding on, I am not perfect and I do not know everything. There I admit it, I don’t have a problem doing so.

But I do know that if I do not have all the answers I do know where to go to get them. I just ascribe to the flavor of the month and taut it as the truth. For example as to what I do have an understanding on. is your false assertions you have unceasingly made about the CC forbidding marriage and forcing Catholic to fast citing 1 Timothy 4. How do I know I have the proper understanding? Because I researched 1 Timothy 4, found out who Timothy was talking to and about, cross referenced it with Catholic Commentary, the CCC, and the dictionary. In all of these, it undeniably proved your assertion false and as you have stated several times, “It is my opinion”. I provided the references to you and you refused to read them. You even stated that you did not. The problem is you value your opinion over the truth. You cant even cite any other source other than your mistaken private misinterpretations of the Bible. How do you think this is credible.

Your most likely wrong about me. Thanks, though, for your opinion.​

BTW, did you give me verses from the Bible to read or someones understanding of a teaching? When I see Bible verses, I read them; when I find commentary that’s been voiced over and over and over again, I tend not to reread said opinions.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t see how we could both be right. For example, either abortion is a sin, or it’s not. It can’t be sinful for me but not sinful for you. Either abortion offends God, or it doesn’t.

Anything else is moral relativism.

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges. Killing the innocent is sin. Being lead by the Holy Spirit in a different direction is not sin. It would be sin to disobey the leading of God. You can be lead to Africa and I could be lead to stay where I am. You could be lead to the CC and I could be lead to another Christian church.

Are you saying I’m sinning if I go to a Christian church that is not catholic???

PS Is ‘moral relativism’ the phrase for the day?

 

[wmscott]

Your most likely wrong about me. Thanks, though, for your opinion.​

BTW, did you give me verses from the Bible to read or someones understanding of a teaching? When I see Bible verses, I read them; when I find commentary that’s been voiced over and over and over again, I tend not to reread said opinions.

I gave you Bible verses with accompanying footnotes. In the foot notes was a specific term that was used and I used a Standard English dictionary to provide an independent definition to that term. The commentary provided more in-depth information on the foot notes and the subject of forbidden marriage and forced fasting in this thread. I also provided excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject so that you would be enlightened as to what the CCC really teaches with 8 Bible verses to support the teaching. The great thing is that the CCC, the commentary, and the scriptural foot notes all support the Bible verses that were in issue. I hope this helps. And by the way here is the LINK if you are really interested in what it said.

Added: Also the commentary that I provided is not stuff that is voiced over and over and over again on these threads. It is commentary with applicable Scripture side by side.

 

[Dokimas]

If someone else on the thread strays off topic, we need to help one another get back on. If you feed into it, it looks like you have a motive for avoiding the topic. In the last thread, it looked like you were persistently avoiding the topic of whether Catholics needed to be evangelized. You were repeatedly confronted about not responding to the topic, and became defensive when you were asked if your comments on priestly celibacy meant that you thought Catholics were not Christian.

I answered over and over and over again that I’m not here to evangelized the CC. I answered the specific questions about what I believe to be incorrect understanding of catholics and that they are NOT a sign of the need to be evangelized. What you call being defensive is being tired of the same old, same old by you and others.

The reason we are not getting anywhere, Doki, is because you stubbornly cling to your perceptions, rather than what we are telling you about the Teaching of the Church.

Then let’s move on with what I hope is my final comment of, ‘a rose is stil a rose …’

You are right, and the Catholic Church teaches that celibacy is valued,but that it CANNOT BE FORCED on anyone, because it is a gift of God, and gifts of God CANNOT BE FORCED ON ANYONE.

Does it also teach as Paul did that marriage of bishops is fine?

God bless you Doki for taking responsibility for your temper, offering an apology, and being honest about your points of view. You are taking on a crowd of fanatical Catholics pretty much all by yourself.

Do I detect a bit of mocking? Maybe a bit condescending? I think I’ll stick with mocking.

I don’t remember apologizing for a temper. I don’t think I was showing a temper. I was apologizing for using the same tactic used on me, knowing full well that I was ‘baiting’ the person. I don’t like it when done to me, so I apologized.

BTW, in context, I was calling you out for not offering a positive word to me about honestly saying I didn’t read all the post in question.

It is not my intention to be condescending, so I apologize if I came across that way.

However, people that are interested in learning do not just stop reading information because it does not agree with their opinion. They will also at least accept another point of view, even if they don’t agree with it. Instead of accepting how we see things, you keep insisting on your point of view. This looks like a refusal to learn and accept. No one is asking you to submit to the discpline of the Cahtolic Church to choose from among those called to celibacy for the priesthood. But it would be helpful if you could accept that those who wish to become priests and deacons freely accept this discipline as part of their preparation for service.

I have accepted your point of view. I have still disagreed with you. You have rejected my point of view.

No, the CC cannot “part ways” with Jesus because the CC is His Holy Bride. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her holy and infallible.

I misspoke: I did not mean the CC ‘parts ways’; I meant the analogy you were making points out that the CC and Jesus are not the same, sin makes them very different – Jesus never sins; the CC is people and people sin.

Yes, humans attached to the Church sin, but the Church cannot sin. He has betrothed her to Himself. She is His Bride.

He has cleanse His Bride; this means He has cleaned her from her sins.

Suffice to say that your responses reflect a person who is hurt and resentful.

Wrong. So please don’t say this again. Thank you.

 

[Dokimas]

No, Doki,in fact you appear to have missed my point. My point is that the Church is incarnational, just as Jesus is. she has a human and divine natures. It is not her divine nature that falls short, but the human. Humans falling short cannot make divinity fall short.

I understood you just fine. The CC human side sins. Jesus’ human side never did and will never. That’s why your similarity breaks down.

 

[Dokimas]

The gift of infallibility does not apply to individuals, but the the Church as a Body. Individual leaders make mistakes all the time. Remember the words of James when they emerged from the Council of Jerusalem, “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. This is the cooperative nature of the gift of infallibility. The HS guides the magesterium so that error is prevented.

Sure it can be. And in your case, it was on the last thread. It appears that you are repeating that pattern here.

You have stubbornly refused to accept what we are saying about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and are forcing your anti-Catholic perspective upon us.
Since the Catholic Church penned the NT, there is nothing in it that contradicts the Catholic faith.

It may be that you are unable to discuss the topic, because you are too invested in finding fault wherever you have a chance? You are right, I think the whole rabbit trail into the abuse issue is a way of avoiding the thread topic.

That’s ok, because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not for sale.

Jesus taught that those who turn their back on him will be denied. They separate themselves from the Vine, and their end is near to being burned.

Perhaps so, but it does not change how you are coming across. You present yourself as one who is unwilling to accept other’s points of view.

It is interesting that you have judged my perceptions and opinions as 'wrong". Actually, it pretty much proves my point, that you are intolerant of other’s points of view. The fact is, you are coming across as a person who is hurt and resentful. Now it may be that you don’t intend to present yourself that way, and maybe you don’t wish to be perceived as a person who only wants to take pot shots, and not learn. However, this is how at least one other person interprets your remarks.

Well, Doki, you are out of bounds here. You do not get to decide for me how your posts sound. Maybe you don’t want to present yourself this way, but this is how you sound.
If you are communicating a sentiment that is not accurate, then you may want to consider expressing yourself differently.

No, I do not expect Catholics to be perfect, so when they fall short, I don’t need to accuse and find fault with them. It is true, I am disappointed when anyone (including myself) who claims to be long to Christ falls into sin, but I do not declare that the Church is not His HOly Bride because some people fall short.

I should not have to defend myself against your attacks. I get off topic sometimes because of your comments. It’s not your fault I get sidetracted answering specific post.

 

[Dokimas]

I gave you Bible verses with accompanying footnotes. In the foot notes was a specific term that was used and I used a Standard English dictionary to provide an independent definition to that term. The commentary provided more in-depth information on the foot notes and the subject of forbidden marriage and forced fasting in this thread. I also provided excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject so that you would be enlightened as to what the CCC really teaches with 8 Bible verses to support the teaching. The great thing is that the CCC, the commentary, and the scriptural foot notes all support the Bible verses that were in issue. I hope this helps. And by the way here is the LINK if you are really interested in what it said.

Added: Also the commentary that I provided is not stuff that is voiced over and over and over again on these threads. It is commentary with applicable Scripture side by side.

I clicked the link and it took me to PRmerger’s post.

 

[wmscott]

I clicked the link and it took me to PRmerger’s post.

Try It again and scroll down about half of the way to post 458, that is where it starts. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Sorry had to edit