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

[PRmerger]

Here we go again. I’ve never said anyone should be force to marry.

Right. But it’s the same argument you’re using that we’re turning around to use on you.

We’re not saying anyone should be forced to be celibate.

 

[Dokimas]

OhmyGOSH, Doki, I would be the happiest woman on this forum if I had read that you “acknowledged my point”.

All I understood from you was that you were saying that the verse in 2 Samuel could not apply to Mary because Mary did not die. Whatever.

It seemed to me that you have never acknowledged this point, which is crucial:

THERE ARE EXAMPLES IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD ‘UNTIL’ MEANING ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, BUT NOT AFTERWARDS.

I do not believe you have ever acknowledged that.

If you did, could you give me a reference to the post # in which you did this?

I did acknowledge this point. I also stated context tells us how we can understand it.

There are many verses in the NT that can only logically be understood that something changes after ‘until’. Have you acknowledged this?

BTW, I know I acknowledged your point. That’s why I was so sad you wouldn’t continue our discussion. It made no sense to me.

If you could remind me what thread we were on, I’d love to try to find it.

 

[PRmerger]

I did acknowledge this point. I also stated context tells us how we can understand it.

There are many verses in the NT that can only logically be understood that something changes after ‘until’. Have you acknowledged this?

BTW, I know I acknowledged your point. That’s why I was so sad you wouldn’t continue our discussion. It made no sense to me.

If you could remind me what thread we were on, I’d love to try to find it.

Here’s the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6738461&page=50

 

[PRmerger]

There are many verses in the NT that can only logically be understood that something changes after ‘until’. Have you acknowledged this?

Indeed, I did.

Right here: (specific part bolded and font increased for emphasis)

Thank you for answering, my dear gentlemanly friend!

So we are agreed, then, based on context, that sometimes the Scriptures–both in the OT and the NT–use the word “until” to mean “only up to a certain point”. (Although I must say that there’s nothing in the context of either 2 Sam or Corinthians which tells us this. With 2 Samuel it’s common sense that tells us she didn’t have children after she died–not the context of the verses; and with Corinthians it’s all the other verses in Scripture which tell us Jesus reigns forever. So it’s not context in these examples)

Then, we can say that Matthew’s verse about Joseph not knowing Mary “until” she gave birth is not proof whatsoever that Mary had relations with Joseph. The context does not give us any clues about how “until” is used in this verse.

 

[Dokimas]

Right. But it’s the same argument you’re using that we’re turning around to use on you.

We’re not saying anyone should be forced to be celibate.

I did this to someone a few weeks ago and got blasted for it when I apologized for it. Funny isn’t it.

BTW, let’s compare apples with apples.

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed, I did.

Right here: (specific part bolded and font increased for emphasis)

[SIGN]Thank you for answering, my dear gentlemanly friend!

**So we are agreed, then, based on context, that sometimes the Scriptures–both in the OT and the NT–use the word “until” to mean **"only up to a certain point". (Although I must say that there’s nothing in the context of either 2 Sam or Corinthians which tells us this. With 2 Samuel it’s common sense that tells us she didn’t have children after she died–not the context of the verses; and with Corinthians it’s all the other verses in Scripture which tell us Jesus reigns forever. So it’s not context in these examples)

Then, we can say that Matthew’s verse about Joseph not knowing Mary “until” she gave birth is not proof whatsoever that Mary had relations with Joseph. The context does not give us any clues about how “until” is used in this verse.[/SIGN]

I must say I misunderstood you post. The reason I did what because if memory serves me, this post you quote from comes after I acknowledged your point. Were did you get this so I can look more carefully?

Sorry for misunderstanding your point. My BIG mistake.

BTW, I’m going to bed. See you later.

 

[PRmerger]

I did this to someone a few weeks ago and got blasted for it when I apologized for it. Funny isn’t it.

BTW, let’s compare apples with apples.

Firstly, I doubt that anyone here “blasted” you for apologizing for doing it. They probably “blasted” you for using a sneaky technique.

We are not being sneaky. We are just turning around your argument and applying it to you.

Secondly, you keep using that “apples with apples” phrase, but I actually don’t think you understand analogies and metaphors. And I say that with all due respect, Dokimas. :tissues: No offense intended.

 

[PRmerger]

I must say I misunderstood you post. The reason I did what because if memory serves me, this post you quote from comes after I acknowledged your point.

While it sounded like you “acknowledged” my point, you actually clarified later and said, “No, I don’t agree with you”, right here:

Originally posted by Dokimas: What I agreed to was that context tells us that either nothing happens after ‘until’ or something most likely did happen after ‘until’. A woman can’t have a baby after death. Mary did not die so she could have had relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus. Agreed?

Were did you get this so I can look more carefully?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6738984&postcount=741

Sorry for misunderstanding your point. My BIG mistake.

I’m not sure to what you’re referring.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Bible teaches that a man should not divorce his wife. That’s why!!! It does NOT teach he should be celebate if he’s to become a priest. WRONG comparison.

No, dear.

The point is, a vow is a vow.

You DO agree, do you not, that one can legitimately take a vow of celibacy --Jesus permitted this, yes?

If so, then it is just as wrong for you to argue that those who vow celibacy should break those vows if they have ‘urges’ than it is for you to argue that those who marry should break THOSE vows if THEY have urges.

Do you think people are ANIMALS who can’t control themselves sexually?

When St. Paul spoke of ‘better to marry than to burn’ **he was not speaking of those who had vowed celibacy. **

That is the reason that a prospective priest does not just say, “priest me” but must spend several years praying and discerning to see if he truly and freely can be celibate.

Of course, most of us facing marriage don’t just jump into THAT either. We pray, we discern, we take the time to go through Pre-Cana etc.

But you know, there’s been (sadly) a lot of trouble for Catholics AND non-Catholics too. They seem to have trouble with marriage lately, have you noticed? It’s not that marriage has changed, it’s that divorce is now common and acceptable. Even for Christians. (So much for the Bible, eh Doki? Don’t get me wrong, I personally agree that divorce is wrong. But a lot of Christians are not paying attention to their Christian teachings, and they are rushing into marriage, and they are ‘bailing’ on marriage. IOW, it’s not the marriage teachings that are at fault–the people getting married just aren’t being faithful to the teachings.

It seems to me that now you want the equivalent misery to happen to the celibate.

**Instead of having both groups (celibate and married) remain faithful, you want to stop the celibates even having a chance. You say, "Oh it’s too hard, it is FORCED’. But you don’t say the same of marriage. You just go ahead and sigh and say, "well, it’s all right, the Bible allows divorce for one reason so we’ll just STRETCH that and if we agree, we’ll say, “You’re covered’ but if we don’t, we’ll condemn you to hell.” **

 

[guanophore]

Why did the apostles preach the Gospel? What purpose did Jesus come to earth?

Isn’t to seek the lost for the purpose of showing them how to be saved? Isn’t the most important thing helping a person to see their need for Jesus? Salvation verses, then, are the essentials. All other, while extremely important, are secondary to getting a person’s soul on the road to Heaven by faith in Jesus.

The problem with this, Doki, is that the Church was preaching and leading people to salvation for centuries before the Bible was formed. The way the Apostles and their successors taught about salvation is quite different than what you have been given to believe. They did not extract a concept of soteriology from a handful of bible verses, but received it from the One who committed it to their care.

You have decided, based upon the authority of yourself, that certain verses are more important than others. You have reasoned this with your own “common sense”. Your perceptions are a significant departure from the teachings of the Apostles.

It seems you want to divide not draw close to in the areas of agreement.

It so happens that some of the doctrines extrapolated by our separted brethren are Catholic in nature.

Why is it always so important for you to try to set people like me ‘straight’? Why is it so important that I get what you get? Are you not judging me? At best, you think I’m less of a Christian than you.

It is our duty to set people straight who suffer from the kind of misunderstandings that you do. If you are going to reject the Church founded by Christ, it is best that you do so based upon what we really believe and teach, rather than imaginings. It is important that you “get what we get” because we want you to be able to see our point of view. If you see it, and still reject it, then at least we have done our duty to you. No, I don’t judge you. I am disappointed that you are unwilling or unable to see things from a different point of view, but I realize that some people just can’t. I am sure you are the very best Christian you know how to be. Your faith is obviously very sincere. You are walking in the bit of truth you have been able to glean.

That’s not the way you say it, so why not tell me the term for people like me? BTW, you may be correct; I quite possibly may be less of a Christian than you.

The term used by the Church is “separated brethren”. We are separated from the perfect unity that God desires because you have embraced ideas and doctrines the Apostles tell us are heresies.

 

[wmscott]

So Dokimas, I have asked you twice, “are there any requirements or prerequisites to becoming a pastor or minister in the non-Catholic denominations or even your denomination that are not specifically verbatim mentioned in a verse from the Bible somewhere? The one I can think of is that in some or most denominations they hold a degree in divinity from a college. Where is that in the Bible”?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
The alternative is worse? Why are you so against celibacy? Is it because you are not capable of it,thus you have to bash it or attack it?

Why aren’t you against misquoting, misrepresenting, misstating what I’ve said. You are doing it again.

And my aren’t we against what you have been told a billion times. You are doing it again,well then again you do it most of the time.

I’M NOT against celibacy. In this discussion, IF I’m against anything, I’m against forcing someone to be celebate in order to serve God as a priest.

Of course you are,so who are you kidding? See and there you go again,insisting it is BEING forced. How do you know it is forced? Were you a priest before? Did you enter the seminary and were told it will be FORCED on men?

Again,tell me what part of the terms: VOW and DISCIPLINE you do not comprehend,so I can elaborate on them,since it is not sticking to your senses.

So tell me who FORCED St.Paul to be celibate?

I’m bashing nothing nor attacking anything. I’m stating my opinion and trying to back it up with Scripture.

And we Catholics are not? You have been given plenty of verses to support it. So why haven’t you answered the question that many non-Catholic ministers are required to meet certain requirments? Where in the Bible does it state to earn a degree in theology? Are you going to deny many non-Catholics do have processes?

You play the double-standard game a lot.

 

[jmcrae]

So the seminarian is forced to take a vow of celebacy if he thinks he is called by God to become a priest.

 

[Nicea325]

Dokimas;6771450:

Jesus and Paul made it clear that celibacy is preferable. St, Paul pointed out plainly that a member of the clergy who is married has two loyalties - one, how to make God happy, and two, how to make his wife happy.

Marriage is just as holy and demanding a calling as the priesthood. Do you think that God would call someone to two very difficult and demanding vocations at the same time? The priesthood demands 100% of a man’s attention. So does marriage and family life.

Should we require that men burn themselves out trying to fulfill the demands of two vocations that each require 100% of their attention?

Nothing about the celibate priesthood violates anything in the Scriptures - and it is based on wisdom. Men who are priests are not doing a 9-5 job in an office, and then go home and sit around watching TV all evening.

They live in small apartments in the roof of the Church (which is not really an environment that is conducive to the raising of children, or to married life), and are required to be available to provide the Sacraments to the people 24 hours of every day. Our priests are wakened up in the middle of the night several times a week, to bring the Sacrament of the Sick to people in emergency rooms and hospitals. If they were married, the constant demands of being called from their bed in the middle of the night would soon put a strain on their marriage. And being wakened up in the middle of the night means that they sleep at odd hours during the day - which would make things difficult for their children.

jmcrae,

Dokimas has been told over and over.Enough has been said, I think he is here just to argue and attack our beliefs in a subtle way.

 

[Dokimas]

While it sounded like you “acknowledged” my point, you actually clarified later and said, “No, I don’t agree with you”, right here:

Doki You’re welcome. [SIGN]Did you just miss my answer?

What I agreed to was that **context tells us that either nothing happens after **‘until’ **or ****something most likely did happen **after ‘until’. A woman can’t have a baby after death. Mary did not die so she could have had relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus. Agreed?

I’m not saying the Matthew 1:25 verse is NOT a proof. It is good evidence FOR their relationship based on the use of ‘until’ in the other verses you agreed, in context, meant something was going to happen after ‘until’.​

Married couples have relations after they are married. Mary was to wait ‘until’ Jesus was born. [/SIGN]

I agreed with you and said context often tells us whether or not something changed after ‘until’.

I’m not sure to what you’re referring.

I misunderstood your post you referenced. I read it wrong and didn’t think you acknowledged the verses that context tells us something DID change after ‘until’.

 

[Dokimas]

No, dear.

The point is, a vow is a vow.

You DO agree, do you not, that one can legitimately take a vow of celibacy --Jesus permitted this, yes?

Jesus did NOT require the vow. No one should be made to make the vow.

If so, then it is just as wrong for you to argue that those who vow celibacy should break those vows if they have ‘urges’ than it is for you to argue that those who marry should break THOSE vows if THEY have urges.

Paul told them to marry if they couldn’t remain celebate for lust sake.

Do you think people are ANIMALS who can’t control themselves sexually?

Take a look. People act like animals in this sex crazed world. Why put a man in the place where he may fail, not because he wants to but because he was made by God to have feelings?

When St. Paul spoke of ‘better to marry than to burn’ **he was not speaking of those who had vowed celibacy. **

Wasn’t he talking to those whom he just told it would be better for serving God to be celebate?

That is the reason that a prospective priest does not just say, “priest me” but must spend several years praying and discerning to see if he truly and freely can be celibate.

Well meaning and intentioned people lie to temselves.

But you know, there’s been (sadly) a lot of trouble for Catholics AND non-Catholics too. They seem to have trouble with marriage lately, have you noticed? It’s not that marriage has changed, it’s that divorce is now common and acceptable. Even for Christians. (So much for the Bible, eh Doki? Don’t get me wrong, I personally agree that divorce is wrong. But a lot of Christians are not paying attention to their Christian teachings, and they are rushing into marriage, and they are ‘bailing’ on marriage. IOW, it’s not the marriage teachings that are at fault–the people getting married just aren’t being faithful to the teachings.

There is a big problem. We don’t take vows seriously enough. That’s why we should not ask anyone to make a vow that Jesus doesn’t not ask of them.

It seems to me that now you want the equivalent misery to happen to the celibate.

What?

**Instead of having both groups (celibate and married) remain faithful, you want to stop the celibates even having a chance. You say, "Oh it’s too hard, it is FORCED’. But you don’t say the same of marriage. You just go ahead and sigh and say, "well, it’s all right, the Bible allows divorce for one reason so we’ll just STRETCH that and if we agree, we’ll say, “You’re covered’ but if we don’t, we’ll condemn you to hell.” **

Read into what I’ve said anything that makes you justified to reject my understanding. That’s your right. You are welcome to have your opinion, even if it is incorrect (or correct).

 

[Dokimas]

So Dokimas, I have asked you twice, “are there any requirements or prerequisites to becoming a pastor or minister in the non-Catholic denominations or even your denomination that are not specifically verbatim mentioned in a verse from the Bible somewhere? The one I can think of is that in some or most denominations they hold a degree in divinity from a college. Where is that in the Bible”?

I believe I answered it. I said many evangelical churches use Paul’s writings to Timothy and Titus.

That’s the best I’ll do, understanding you are most likely trying to ‘paint me into a corner’.

 

[Dokimas]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
The alternative is worse? Why are you so against celibacy? Is it because you are not capable of it,thus you have to bash it or attack it?

And my aren’t we against what you have been told a billion times. You are doing it again,well then again you do it most of the time.

Of course you are,so who are you kidding? See and there you go again,insisting it is BEING forced. How do you know it is forced? Were you a priest before? Did you enter the seminary and were told it will be FORCED on men?

Again,tell me what part of the terms: VOW and DISCIPLINE you do not comprehend,so I can elaborate on them,since it is not sticking to your senses.

And we Catholics are not? You have been given plenty of verses to support it. So why haven’t you answered the question that many non-Catholic ministers are required to meet certain requirments? Where in the Bible does it state to earn a degree in theology? Are you going to deny many non-Catholics do have processes?

You play the double-standard game a lot.

You are welcome to your opinion even if it may be incorrect.

So tell me who FORCED St.Paul to be celibate?

Silly question.

 

[Dokimas]

Jesus and Paul made it clear that celibacy is preferable. St, Paul pointed out plainly that a member of the clergy who is married has two loyalties - one, how to make God happy, and two, how to make his wife happy.

Marriage is just as holy and demanding a calling as the priesthood. Do you think that God would call someone to two very difficult and demanding vocations at the same time? The priesthood demands 100% of a man’s attention. So does marriage and family life.

Should we require that men burn themselves out trying to fulfill the demands of two vocations that each require 100% of their attention?

Nothing about the celibate priesthood violates anything in the Scriptures - and it is based on wisdom. Men who are priests are not doing a 9-5 job in an office, and then go home and sit around watching TV all evening.

They live in small apartments in the roof of the Church (which is not really an environment that is conducive to the raising of children, or to married life), and are required to be available to provide the Sacraments to the people 24 hours of every day. Our priests are wakened up in the middle of the night several times a week, to bring the Sacrament of the Sick to people in emergency rooms and hospitals. If they were married, the constant demands of being called from their bed in the middle of the night would soon put a strain on their marriage. And being wakened up in the middle of the night means that they sleep at odd hours during the day - which would make things difficult for their children.

Pastoring and being a husband are demanding. We agree. That’s one reason God give ‘help mates’. There are other people in a healthy church that God calls to help.

Thanks for you response and understanding. We, you and I, disagree, though.

 

[jmcrae]

Pastoring and being a husband are demanding. We agree. That’s one reason God give ‘help mates’.

The pastor of a Protestant church does not have nearly the workload of a Catholic priest - for one thing, he is not conducting services several times a day, seven days a week - most Protestant churches are limited to two or three services on Sundays and maybe one or two during the week.