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

[Pat_De]

It’s a personal decision.

I feel we as hosts on the CAFs ought to be more liberal with our charity towards non-Catholics.

However, I also feel that we ought to more strict with our non-Catholic guests when they are incorrect.

That is, I wouldn’t necessarily correct a fellow Catholic when he’s made a minor error, yet I might tend to correct that same error posted by a non-Catholic.

No right or wrong answer–it’s just my preference.

It would be great if you just loved your neighbor as yourself and that way we all give God the glory He deserves through His slaves. A former Catholic on a Catholic site; I would never expect anything less than a double standard; one set of rules for non-Catholics and another unenforced and/or unwritten rules for Catholics because it is a Catholic site.

Getting to the actual topic; no one cares if a priest marries or not; they have a choice and they made it. It makes no difference about the choice for the choice one makes doesn’t change the fact that we are all sinners who need a Savior.

What matters is that the qualifications are being met and if so; then shepherd the flock and if not, then they need to be removed according to Scripture…it is called church discipline and God in His great knowledge of man and sin made these moral standards to keep the church pure and when theses standards are violated the entire body suffers.

 

[PRmerger]

It would be great if you just loved your neighbor as yourself and that way we all give God the glory He deserves through His slaves. A former Catholic on a Catholic site; I would never expect anything less than a double standard; one set of rules for non-Catholics and another unenforced and/or unwritten rules for Catholics because it is a Catholic site.

You deserve more gracious replies than that given to Catholics. So if there’s a double standard you’re the beneficiary.

 

[Pat_De]

Yes, he can be taken away from serving as a parish priest.

But he is still a priest. Forever.

Even if he’s in hell, as jmcrae said.

According to the Bible their is only one priest forever and one priesthood of believers; so how do you reconcile the difference between what you and JM states versus what the bible teaches? Tradition?

 

[Pat_De]

You deserve more gracious replies than that given to Catholics. So if there’s a double standard you’re the beneficiary.

I don’t deserve anything and I wasn’t born yesterday. Just try to love your neighbor

 

[jmcrae]

According to the Bible their is only one priest forever and one priesthood of believers;

Got a verse for that?

My Bible shows a class of ministerial priests (called "deacons, “presbyters” and “elders” in some translations) together with the priesthood of all believers. Go to any on-line Bible and do word searches on these three terms, to get the list of verses - it would be too long to insert here.

so how do you reconcile the difference between what you and JM states versus what the bible teaches? Tradition?

The Holy Tradition recognizes that every baptized person is Priest, Prophet and King. But some men are set aside later in life to serve as deacons, priests, and Bishops - just as we see in the New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

So you don’t understand what Jesus was saying. No big deal. I’ll try to help. Jesus said a man’s only reason to divorce his wife is if SHE is unfaithful (has sex with another). It’s not the he can commit adultery and get a legal divorce. Here, two negatives don’t make a positive, silly girl, it multiplies sin.

Please show the verses that say this. I see nothing about only the cuckolded party being able to divorce.

This is what I read:

but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5

and this:

And He said to them, "(I)Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

And if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. Mark 10

And, why would it be a sin to marry a divorced woman in your systemology, Dokimas? Does Jesus say, except if this woman was divorced because her husband committed adultery?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t deserve anything and I wasn’t born yesterday. Just try to love your neighbor

I can assure you that you deserve respect and courtesy when you come to this forum.

 

[tqualey]

Using the word ‘impoverished’ seems a bit condescending, doesn’t it?

I used ’ ’ to denote it’s not fired like from a NORMAL job because there should be nothing normal about being a pastor/priest.​

Can a priest be defrocked (I’m not sure of the spelling)? Can a priest be taken away from serving as a perish priest?

In answer to your question - yes, he can! And, if you have been reading any newspapers for the past three years, several priests have been defrocked for sexual abuse acts/crimes. These men sinned in one of the worst way imaginable (Luke 17:2) and then gave public scandal. And, those who were in directly in authority over these men also failed to properly supervise their activities and to provide comfort and guidance to those innocent children and their families. Really and truly, this is a terrible scandal - and, apparently it has not yet run its course. There are all of these pundits and talking heads out there who think these sexual abuse activities would have never happened if priests were allowed to marry. And, truthfully, the people involved should have never been allowed into the priesthood - but, if they had not become priests, I have ever confidence they woudl have sexually abused others in whatever profession they chose! OK - that is my opinion and not backed up with much more then my feelings on this matter.

Priests are to be free of family responsibilities so that they can totally dedicate themselves to the People of God through the Catholic Church. I will have been married for 40 years this December…… and let me tell you my wife tells me I am high maintenance and I have a high maintenance wife. Actually, this is as it should be … I think a lot of these so-called low maintenance foks just get boared and beging to have affairs. But, that is just another one of my opinions.

On another topic… I was not able to get a word in edge-wise on that last thread! But, that’s OK… I see you haven’t changed much on this thread…

God bless

 

[Pat_De]

According to the Bible their is only one priest forever and one priesthood of believers;

Got a verse for that?

My Bible shows a class of ministerial priests (called "deacons, “presbyters” and “elders” in some translations) together with the priesthood of all believers.

The Holy Tradition recognizes that every baptized person is Priest, Prophet and King. But some men are set aside later in life to serve as deacons, priests, and Bishops - just as we see in the New Testament.

That is an interesting Bible; can you give me an Amazon link for a Bible that contains the classifications of “ministerial priests”? Thanks.

As for a verse; try understanding Hebrews, Melchizedek, Jesus as High Priest and the New Covenant; if you want to shortcut it, then start in chapter 7 and stop after chapter 11.

Anyway; no points will be made here your idea of priest use to be mine.

 

[jmcrae]

That is an interesting Bible; can you give me an Amazon link for a Bible that contains the classifications of “ministerial priests”? Thanks.

any Bible you can name has the designations of Deacon, Presbyter (priest) and Elder (Bishop). Check it out for yourself on any Bible search engine - I think even the Watchtower Bible has them.

As for a verse; try understanding Hebrews, Melchizedek, Jesus as High Priest and the New Covenant

And how can there be a High Priest if there are no servant priests?

if you want to shortcut it, then start in chapter 7 and stop after chapter 11.

I have read it many times - it actually supports that there are ministerial priests, and what their role is (to offer the Thanksgiving sacrifice, also called the Eucharist, as Melchizedek did; not the sacrifice for sins, as Jesus did).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is an interesting Bible; can you give me an Amazon link for a Bible that contains the classifications of “ministerial priests”? Thanks.

As for a verse; try understanding Hebrews, Melchizedek, Jesus as High Priest and the New Covenant; if you want to shortcut it, then start in chapter 7 and stop after chapter 11.

Anyway; no points will be made here your idea of priest use to be mine.

So Pat. . .exactly what faith tradition do you hail from? And does this faith tradition date itself back to the time of the apostles?

If so. . .then you must be aware (from the writings of the early Church Fathers and their exegis of Scripture) that the first Christians had, from the beginning, priests who served in a ministerial capacity. So your contention that these were not necessary seems strange. . .if they are in Scripture and in tradition (and they are), then where is the Scripture and tradition which condemns the ‘ministerial priest’ and argues for 'priesthood of the believers ALONE?" Nowhere. . .because your new man-made doctrine which has misunderstood Scripture is just that–‘new’ and 'man-made.

NB: Sigh. So often the case with some–not all–Protestant theorizing–they ‘add on’ the word ‘alone’ to a word or concept and thus completely misunderstand Scripture. Here we see Pat with a prime example of adding the ‘alone’ to all Christians as their being priests ALONE --and then making the jump to, “Well, that means we don’t need any ‘ordained’ kinda priests, we’re all just happy equal priesties.” So WHAT if the first 1500 years of Christianity contained ministerial priests? The man-made contention of some–NOT ALL–Protestants is that 'I and my fellow whosies have interpreted the Bible and believe that it must mean all people are priests and none are ministerial priests --and because we interpret it that way and ‘feel’ the Spirit has led us, then all those other teachings are wrong. Because we say so. And you can trust US over any Christian who teaches differently because we say we read and interpret the Bible and that’s what it says to us and the Holy Spirit won’t guide us wrong because we say so."

At least the Catholic faith (and the Orthodox) and indeed to a great extent most of the earliest Protestant faiths, understand the correct teaching regarding ministerial priesthood even if they disagree over some of the specifics. They don’t try to completely bypass the ideas of priests at all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pat De,

As a former Catholic, maybe you recall that there are 3 Sacraments that leave a permanent mark on the soul: Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. In heaven, these marks of the Sacraments are eternally glorious -and in hell, they are eternally disgracefull.

Catholic priests are priests forever (in keeping with the thread topic).

Now, the way I see it, you just joined this list for a reason. Let me welcome you,and tell you I wasn’t born yesterday, either…

The Catholic Chruch bases its authority on Christ who chose Peter to lead (Matt 16) and bind and lose as necessary. For those interested in the priesthood, they must renounce the good of marriage for the greater good of focusing their lives on the People of God - and being able to do this through remaining chaste and not marrying. This stands out to all the world that this is a different life - a closer walk with Christ. It is not for everyone - so, “…let him who can take it -take it…” (1 Cor. 7:25)

God bless

According to the Bible their is only one priest forever and one priesthood of believers; so how do you reconcile the difference between what you and JM states versus what the bible teaches? Tradition?

 

[wanner47]

Here you go, Pat; this article answers all of your questions:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tantum ergo,

Great post!

NB: Sigh. So often the case with some–not all–Protestant theorizing–they ‘add on’ the word ‘alone’ to a word or concept and thus completely misunderstand Scripture. Here we see Pat with a prime example of adding the ‘alone’ to all Christians as their being priests ALONE --and then making the jump to, “Well, that means we don’t need any ‘ordained’ kinda priests, we’re all just happy equal priesties.” So WHAT if the first 1500 years of Christianity contained ministerial priests? The man-made contention of some–NOT ALL–Protestants is that 'I and my fellow whosies have interpreted the Bible and believe that it must mean all people are priests and none are ministerial priests --and because we interpret it that way and ‘feel’ the Spirit has led us, then all those other teachings are wrong. Because we say so. And you can trust US over any Christian who teaches differently because we say we read and interpret the Bible and that’s what it says to us and the Holy Spirit won’t guide us wrong because we say so."

At least the Catholic faith (and the Orthodox) and indeed to a great extent most of the earliest Protestant faiths, understand the correct teaching regarding ministerial priesthood even if they disagree over some of the specifics. They don’t try to completely bypass the ideas of priests at all.

On of the things I have noticed with at least some of the claimed apostates on the CAF is that - at least based on the questions asked - there was a tremendous lack of early teaching of the Faith. With a relativist approach that is so common in society - everything must really appear to be about the same and there is special status for the Church founded on Peter by Christ - as opposed to the church founed by Martin or the one founded on John by John. The gaps in doctrine are to be simply ignored - and, “Why can;t we all just be friends?” Somehow the pictuer of Christ saying this to the Pharisees is just too much for me - not to burst out laughing!

God bless ,

 

[PRmerger]

Anyway; no points will be made here your idea of priest use to be mine.

There are many, many ex-Catholics on the CAFs and I can assure you that the faith they think they left behind bears no resemblance whatsoever to true Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

How 'bout this question: if a man, who’s made a “vow” to his wife decides to embrace his emotional desire to plant his seed in another woman instead of “letting it burn within him”, will he be eternally accursed because he’s going against his “vow”?

I mean, if he stifles that desire to plant his seed in another woman, won’t that be a frustrating thing for him?

Isn’t that the point of your argument, Dokimas, that someone who really, really wants to have sex ought to be able to, and if he doesn’t then it’s going to cause him harm?

I note that Doki did not answer this. Wonder why not?

In fact, I think you may have nailed it here. There is a perception that one has the “right” to avoid burning with passion, and that this “right” should be supported by one’s “right” to live out one’s vocation as one desires. Not matter how you look at it, the subject still wants to retain his “rights”, which means he has not relinquished every thing for God. Why would the Church settle for a servant who is preoccupied with his own "rights’ an gratification, rather than one who is willing to make himself a eunuch for the Kingdom?

If progress is showing others things about what we believe, maybe it has not worked quite the way you had hoped, you may have helped them change their mind.

What is wrong with that? It is much better for a person to make decisions based upon the Truth, rather than misinformation.

If a person decides to reject the Catholic Church, let them do so on the basis of what she really teaches, rather than based upon fallacies like “priests are forbidden to marry”.

Jesus condemns adultery. Jesus does NOT condemn those who can’t choose celibacy. He said ‘he who is able to accept it, let him accept it.’ One would think it’s fair that if one can NOT accept it, He does not hold that against them.

Definitely.

For some reason you seem to think that, if the Church prefers to choose priests from among those who have accepted it, they are discrimminating against everyone else, or that their choice is “held against them”. This represents an attitude of entitlement, as if the candidate is entitled to serve as a priest if one so chooses.

 

[guanophore]

Nope. It’s out of exasperation that you compare the two things when one is definately a sin (adultery/divorce) and a man desiding celibacy was not for him. Celibacy is not a sin; getting married because celibacy isn’t possible isn’t a sin. Apples with apples.

You simply have no grasp of analogies.

Ok, let’s try to back up a bit.

Agreed, it is not a sin to chose celibacy. But, just like a person who chooses marriage, they both make a commitment to govern their passions and discipline themselves by the grace of God, and the power of the HS. They each profess a vow to be faithful to their spouse. One to his wife, the other to the Bride of Christ.

I will also note that there is no case where “celibacy isn’t possible”. All things are possible with God, and one does not have to be at the mercy of his sexual passions. Jesus came to deliver us from bondage to our flesh.

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF Pat!

According to the Bible their is only one priest forever and one priesthood of believers; so how do you reconcile the difference between what you and JM states versus what the bible teaches? Tradition?

There is no difference to reconcile. There are no contradictions between Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Traditions.

The OT gives us the pattern and shadow of what is to come. In it, we see the priesthood of all believers, the minsterial priests, and the high priest.

Anyway; no points will be made here your idea of priest use to be mine.

Points? You mean, you have made up your mind in advance that you do not agree with our point of view?

A former Catholic on a Catholic site; I would never expect anything less than a double standard; one set of rules for non-Catholics and another unenforced and/or unwritten rules for Catholics because it is a Catholic site.

There is a double standard here. Catholics are allowed to proselytize, but Protestants are not. Why do you say you are a 'former Catholic"? You picked a great thread to jump in on!

Getting to the actual topic; no one cares if a priest marries or not; they have a choice and they made it.

Dokimas cares. He seems quite put out with the Catholic Church because we prefer priests that have the gift of celibacy.

 

[VetA]

I don’t belong to a denomination. End of answer.

i and many of my friends here regard ‘non-denominational’ as a denomination, but to make it easier for you, what requirements do your church’s elders say are the bare minimum to be come a pastor or assistant pastor

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

This is an excellent observation…and, one I can verify from my experience on CAF.

There are many, many ex-Catholics on the CAFs and I can assure you that the faith they think they left behind bears no resemblance whatsoever to true Catholicism.

There are essenhtially two groups in this category that post: 1.) the apostates (if that is not considered a condescending term) for those who left the CC because of some claimed problem they had with either poorly understood doctrine or some offense taken from some member(s) or members of the clergy and then there are the members of the “Tiber Swim Team” who returnd and are very precise what is the the Church’s teaching on a particular point and how the religious group they went to failed to meet the promises of Christ - so, they returned to the CC.

What I find really amazing is that there is all of this axe grinding about how the CC is wrong about something - yet these misguided souls refuse to actually verify the Chruch’s teaching on that particular matter…. Seriously, knowing my eternal salvation was in the balance - if I was going to turn my back on the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16) for one founded not only by a man but on a man - I would make sure I looked at every argument from every point of view. Maybe that is why they are on CAF - this gnawing fear that they are on the wrong path - and every day are going down that path a little farther … yet, feel obligated to save face by continuing their attack on the CC and do so on a Catholic site.

Their failure to respond is just one of serval indications that not only do they lack the answer - but, lack the honesy to admit it. And, every day they do that they go a little down the wrong road. The problem with that approach (endless excuses) is that eventually, it stops dead in its tracks (they are summoned to appear before the White Throne). May I recommend on-going prayers for struggling souls?

God bless