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

[guanophore]

Hi,

have I read correctly? Paul wrote to Tim and Titus, who were bishops (=todays priests/pastors) that they should have control over their household?
Do you know what a household is? A household is a family with a wife and (normally) children.
So Paul wrote to a bishop that he should have control over his household!

Bishops were (and still are) overseers. They shepherd the priests and pastors, and have authority over the flock in their area.

When Paul was planting Churches, many married priests and bishops were installed. If they were married, they had to be the husband of one wife, and if they had children, they were not to be unruly. These signs were evidence that the man could manage the flock of God.

He didn't write that he can't be a part of the clergy because he doesn't have the fruit of the Spirit called self control (which is according to you teh celibacy!) - No, on the contrary!

Actually, he wrote both. Self control is definitely one of the requirements. And yes, self control applies to one’s sexual conduct as much as it does to all other areas of life. If a person has made a vow of celibacy, then they are expected to govern their passions.

So we have a problem here. The CC teaches that it’s one of the basic requirements of the clergy to have the spiritual fruit of self control which is, at least in your understanding, celibacy.

In the case of a person who has chosen that lifestyle, yes. If a person is married, then self control means that they are chaste within the vows of their marriage.

But Paul doesn’t write: If you don’t have the spiritual fruit of self control (this means that you are willing to live in celibacy to minister) you are not allowed to be a priest, decon or bishop (the most common Ancient Christian clergy titles).

No. There is no theological reason that a married person cannot serve in these roles. Are you thinking that celibate persons are exempt from exercising self control over their sexual passions? Do you imagine that married people are not required to exercise self control over their sexual passions?

But he writes:

"1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self- controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
**4 **He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.
5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) " (1 Tim 3:2-5; NIV)

Are you reading here anything that makes it seem to you that such a person does not have the fruit of the spirit called “self control”? I think you lost me. It seems clear to me that self control is a requirement.

An overseer in this case is, as far as I know, a today priest (or pastor). Do you see anywhere that Paul wrote that he has to live in celibacy?

Bishops are only chosen from among those ordained to the priesthood, however, the role of the bishop is different than that of a pastor/priest.

There is no scriptural mandate that a priest be celibate. Not all priests are celibate.

I really wish you would go back and read over the thread, as all this has been covered already. If you are going to jump in a thread late, at least have the courtesy to catch up!

Think about it.

My thoughts about it are irrelevant. Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and to loose (legislate), and therefore, if she wishes to choose for priests from among those who are called to celibacy, that is her perogative.

See my link above on the requirements of the USNA. Do you think they have more authority than the Church to keep such standards?

 

[PRmerger]

There are some doctors that have concluded that there may be a correlation between lack of sex and prostrate cancer.

Well, if we’re going to make comparisons on which is healthier: having sex or not having sex you’re going to lose, Dokimas.

3 words:

Sexually

Transmitted

Diseases

 

[PRmerger]

Unless you include the spouses that are murdered by someone to whom sex is denied.

[SIGN1]No one has ever died from not having sex. Period. End of story.[/SIGN1]

 

[guanophore]

If one person was murdered, it proves my point.  BTW, I wasn't making a point, I was responding to carcastic remarks.

No, Doki, it proves nothing of the kind. People do not become murderers because they don’t get sex.

If a person murders another, the lack of having their lusts satisfied may well have been the trigger, but the cause of it is a deep seated characterological problem resulting from their passions ruling their lives. They are in league with the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. Being under the rulership of Satan causes such actions, not a lack of sex.

Because of that, anything could be the trigger. Whenever a person like this does not have his passions gratified, he will rage about it, not matter what it is.

 

[guanophore]

I’m okay with veering off on tangents, but please answer my question first, Doki.

If she’s divorced because her husband committed adultery, why would Jesus say: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

Why would it be adultery if it’s ok to divorce?

Well done PR!

However, it is clear that a person can separate from an adulterous spouse - just that they have to remain single or be reconciled.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Actually, this was a follow up study to the one they did that if you do not have sex you will go blind!

You know, there is an old saying in the hospitals about the most dangerous person is the Resident who has just read a study!

God bless

Here’s where I continue to have problems communication with you. It’s also why I say we make NO progress. At best, YOU MISSTATE what I’ve said. I did NOT say that anyone will die for lack of sex.

BTW, before you make any claims about sex and health, you may want to ‘goggle’ it and see what you find. There are some doctors that have concluded that there may be a correlation between lack of sex and prostrate cancer.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, Dokimas,

Actually, this was a follow up study to the one they did that if you do not have sex you will go blind!

<spitting out my milk laughing!>

 

[Pat_De]

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.

There is no use in arguing the truth of the matter since the form of “sacrificial priest” is a completely different term than what you are referring as priest as and Elder or Overseer. An Elder or Overseer can and are used interchangeably in the Bible and the sacrificial priest is a totally different term and only used in the New Covenant sense concerning Jesus as the high Priest and the royal priesthood of believers who form of sacrifice is not a bloodless reenactment. For God has told His priests what their sacrifice is and it does not accord with your tradition.

In Romans 12, the slave of Christ called to be an apostle by the mercy of God states the following: “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship.”
I understand what you are saying; I was once in those shoes.

If you understood the discussion on Melchizedek, then you would understand why a Catholic priest cannot come from that order; they die. Christ lives forever and made on sacrifice once and for all of the redeemed in Christ and is never to be repeated. But that is Scripture and not tradition therefore I understand where you are coming from.

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

What does the Bible say? You claim you have read Hebrews many times; try Romans 12.

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).

Verse please and in context.

 

[Pat_De]

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.

Your revisionist history does not match with the Bible. You may want to read the response to JMrae

If you were to read the post I did not say there is no priesthood; I stated the opposite. the problem is the use of the term priest in a sacrificial sense and Hebrews makes the contrast and comparison to the OT priesthood of Aaron, similar to the Catholic priesthood, to that of the new order that of Melchizedek, which cannot be of the Catholic order since one of the unique qualifiers of Melchizedek is that that priest never dies unlike the Levitical priests and Catholic priests that stand daily ministering sacrifices and eventually do what? Die just like that of Aaron’s, not Melchizedek, which is one of several reasons why Jesus priesthood is superior and only needed one sacrifice never to be repeated, that is what the Bible says, but that is not what your tradition teaches.

If you want to see another simple qualifier; who is the manufacturer of the altar in your church? God or man?

Show me a single verse where their is an ordained priest in the way your church uses the term priest, one who makes daily sacrifices. There is good reason why the reformation shook the world. Luther was a great scholar and knew what he was talking about. He did make mistakes, but all men do, but for the better part he got it right and that is why he has had such a great impact on Christianity and God uses a few men throughout the ages to shake things up. John Calvin is another example and what these men have in common is their faithfulness to exposit Scripture to great depths to raise people to great worship and give honor and glory to God. Spurgeon and Edwards are also other examples of great men who spent hours upon hours reaching the depths of Scripture and lifting people up to a level of understanding and love of God.

Today you see mediocrity in all churches when it comes to getting deep into the word of God and lifting people up; this is a sign that the end of the end is coming and quite possibly in our lifetimes. Pastor and teachers of Scripture are complacent and “lazy” in doing their due diligence in studying the Word of God. Ask you priest how many hours a week he puts into studying the word of God to present the Homily? Or better yet ask how he prepares it; what he goes through and is their a routine or formula. I have asked several preachers and the answers accord with their preaching and the reflection is on their congregation - a sad state of affairs for the church in general in my opinion regardless of the denomination.

We do not know the hour or the day as Jesus said, but He did give us indications of what to look for and those indications, such as a one world religion and one world government are right before our eyes.

 

[Pat_De]

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

That is one interpretation, but is it the correct interpretation is it what God has said? You selected the wrong verse in I Corinthians and then imposed a mandate that Scripture does not have, which is the imposition of not being married to serve as an Overseer or Elder. Perhaps you would like to toss aside I & 2 timothy and Titus, where the qualifications and the instructions are given. You see how tradition of men eventually nullifies the truth of God. But as a person who would choose to join the Catholic priesthood; he must follow the rules given to him or he will not be selected; that is the Church’s mandate and if you look into the history of it you will find when this change occurred and the reasons for such a change and it has nothing to do with the Bible for its mandates on qualifications are quite clear.

Can you please provide the verses on Holy Orders and Confirmation as presented in your church since the burden is on you to provide evidence of such a claim that does not exist in the Bible.

I believe this negates the additional claim you made that the Church basis its authority on Christ; since it was the Holy Spirit who gave the Christian pastor the standards and qualification of being a preacher-teacher and it does not gel with your tradition.

Getting back to the topic; marriage or no marriage does not necessarily change the person’s focus on Christ as we have witnessed throughout history.

 

[Pat_De]

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

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

I would love to take that apart piece by piece or provide you with a “link” to show the contradictions, but that would be on the borderline of violating forum rules according to my understanding of them. Perhaps you would like to send me an email and I will be happy to show you the errors.

 

[Pat_De]

Hi, Tantum ergo,

Great post!

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 ,

Tom,

What you demonstrate is a lack of obedience to love your neighbor, which in turn shows a lack of obedience to love your God. You can work that out with God for He sees the things we cannot, but He did teach us that out of the mouth speaks the heart.

 

[Pat_De]

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.

How would you know unless one actually walked in those shoes; you are speculating here. What is “true Catholicism”; it is ever changing and always has but not to the same degree as Protestant churches. It is very difficult to find a truly Christ centered church in this day and age as more and more preachers cater to the culture rather than God. Glad He is in charge of His flock, which has not been unveiled yet, but I believe it will be very soon.

 

[Pat_De]

Welcome to CAF Pat!

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.

Where are the “sacrificial priests”? That is the point.

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

You misuse the term priest in contrast to the way it is used in Scripture; so yes I do disagree but only after careful study of the Bible.

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!

That would be one example, but the term itself is laughable since the Bible teaches that only God converts anyone into His kingdom; so proselytize here must mean to present the Gospel because a true Catholic cannot be conveerted away from their faith can they? So Catholics are allowed to present the “Gospel” but can’t and Protestants can but are not allowed…

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

I’m not sure why he would actually care, he may disagree with it but the Bible does teach that if one chooses to there is nothing wrong and may have an advantage, but at the same time it is the qualifications in Tim & Titus that count as God sees it and as Paul warned about so many being teachers because of the greater what? If one chooses to enter the Catholic priesthood, then they know what the rules are before entering and make the choice. It doesn’t mean they are qualified to shepherd the flock of God because they made that choice just as a married person who enters into the ministry. Many out there today are not qualified according to God’s standards; so whether married or not the qualifications are what counts in the end.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pat De,

You are soooooooooooooooooooooo right…

“There is no use in arguing…” but, it has nothing to do with “the truth”! How anyone can go so far off course and then claim Melchizedek did not apply to what Christ, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the ordination of priests today.

The arguments you have presented are truly convoluted and simply appear to obscure the real foreshadowing that the OT provides for the NT. The issue is: Christ gave Peter the Keys and the authority to bind and lose (Matt 16) and that Christ told His listerners (John 6) that He would give them His Body to eat - and they must eat His Body to live. Matthew, Mark and Luke relate the Last Supper as the When and How this great mystery was accomplished. Christ commissioned His Apostles to “Do this in rememberance of Me”. The priesthood, foreshodowed in the OT, is brought to fruition in the NT with Christ being physically present on the altar after the Consecration. This is the central belief of the Catholic Church, given to us by Christ, Who also said that the Holy Spirit would protect the Chruch for error.

Ever since the Jews walked away from Christ (John 6) for coming up with this “…hard saying…” people have been refusing to believe God. There really is nothing new in this.

You are perfectly free to remain a ‘former’… but, ultimately, everyone gets to see what happens at the White Throne.

God bless

There is no use in arguing the truth of the matter since the form of “sacrificial priest” is a completely different term than what you are referring as priest as and Elder or Overseer. An Elder or Overseer can and are used interchangeably in the Bible and the sacrificial priest is a totally different term and only used in the New Covenant sense concerning Jesus as the high Priest and the royal priesthood of believers who form of sacrifice is not a bloodless reenactment. For God has told His priests what their sacrifice is and it does not accord with your tradition.

In Romans 12, the slave of Christ called to be an apostle by the mercy of God states the following: “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship.”
I understand what you are saying; I was once in those shoes.

If you understood the discussion on Melchizedek, then you would understand why a Catholic priest cannot come from that order; they die. Christ lives forever and made on sacrifice once and for all of the redeemed in Christ and is never to be repeated. But that is Scripture and not tradition therefore I understand where you are coming from.

What does the Bible say? You claim you have read Hebrews many times; try Romans 12.

Verse please and in context.

 

[wmscott]

Hi

I don’t have the time know ( it is already 10:46 pm here, and I have to get up at 5 am tomorrow :/) to read your posts completely through, so I only skimmed it through.

Well, it has partially to do with my thread but doesn’t answer it completely I guess…

Anyway, I need to go to bed now.

Gn8 everyone.

May the glory and peace of our Lord be with all of you.

Esdra

When you get time, it was addressing the issue of Priests being forced to be celibate. I had thought this is where you were going. if not my bad. Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

How would you know unless one actually walked in those shoes; you are speculating here.

How would I know that these ex-Catholics don’t know what the IC is, or where Scripture is in the Mass?

'cause I love to ask those questions, and they answer incorrectly.

BTW, Pat, where is Scripture in the Mass?

What is “true Catholicism”;

It is the constant teaching of the Apostles, handed down to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

If one wants to know what the CC believes, it is very easy to look it up.

However, if one wants to know what Protestantism teaches, we have about 33,000 different variations of what Protestantism professes.

 

[PRmerger]

I would love to take that apart piece by piece or provide you with a “link” to show the contradictions, but that would be on the borderline of violating forum rules according to my understanding of them.

You are absolutely free to attempt to take “apart piece by piece” the contradictions in that article. That is not a violation of forum rules.

Go for it! Show us what you got!

 

[wanner47]

You are absolutely free to attempt to take “apart piece by piece” the contradictions in that article. That is not a violation of forum rules.

Go for it! Show us what you got!

Agreed!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Agreed!

Absolutely–let’s see it. Some real documented ‘proofs’ too and none of this “luther was a great man and got it right’. . .Got 'what” right exactly?

BTW, Pat, Luther believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary. You probably do not. So how exactly do you know what teachings of Luther ‘got it right’ and what ones he got ‘wrong?’ What’s your authority?