Does that mean Peter didn’t represent the Lord because he wasn’t celibate?And Jesus, our Lord, King, and High Priest–whom the Pope represents– was celibate.
I didn’t say anything about taking if from the priests. I’m only wondering why it is required despite the fact that Peter was married.Peter’s married state has nothing to do with the prudential and disciplinary decisions by the Vatican on the celibacy of priests. The decision was made for the Latin Rite for good cause, and is being upheld for good cause.
The arguments against celibacy are unconvincing because they are not based in a desire to wholeheartedly serve the Church. There is no need for a married priesthood and the gift of celibacy ought not to be taken from our priests.
The several Scriptural warrants, including our Lord’s own teaching and practice, point to celibacy as the higher good.I didn’t say anything about taking if from the priests. I’m only wondering why it is required despite the fact that Peter was married.
No apostles were female but wasn’t it Aquila and Priscilla who expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly?This dove-tails nicely into the women priest thing:
Some of Christ’s chosen apostles were married
Some were not
Therefore, the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders does not stand or fall on celibacy and thus, the authoritative Church may govern one way or another as she sees fit.
All of Christ’s chosen apostles were male
No apostles were female
Therefore the validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders does stand or fall on gender and thus, the Church has no authority to rescind Our Lord’s choice of apostles and ordain women.
If you say so. Then, so what does that have to do with the price of tea?No apostles were female but wasn’t it Aquila and Priscilla who expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly?
We only know that Peter was married because of mention of his mother-in-law. The Scriptures tell us nothing about his wife or children. It is entirely possible that his wife had died and he was childless.I didn’t say anything about taking if from the priests. I’m only wondering why it is required despite the fact that Peter was married.
Luke 18:28-30: And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”
I don’t say so. You can find it in the book of Acts. It was you who brought up the issue of not ordaining women. God will use whomever he chooses to fulfill His purpose. Who are you to say whether or not that person can be a man or not?If you say so. Then, so what does that have to do with the price of tea?
You’re right. I can’t argue with your point.We only know that Peter was married because of mention of his mother-in-law. The Scriptures tell us nothing about his wife or children. It is entirely possible that his wife had died and he was childless.
Jesus answered Peter about the commitment of following him in religious service, so it appears Peter was free to do so:
Be careful. How many priests do you know vs. # of priests worldwide?I support it, so do all of the priests I know. So what’s the problem?
I meant by ‘you say so’ meaning I didn’t recall the passage, but accepted your testimony on it. I was agreeing with you. (Is it a full moon tonight?)I don’t say so. You can find it in the book of Acts. It was you who brought up the issue of not ordaining women. God will use whomever he chooses to fulfill His purpose. Who are you to say whether or not that person can be a man or not?
It’s not us. It’s Jesus. In Catholic Sacramental theology, Bishops receive Apostolic authority (“go and teach all nations”) and sacramental faculties as established by Christ (the Last Supper, Easter night, Pentecost). They are entrusted with the authority to define the teaching.I don’t say so. You can find it in the book of Acts. It was you who brought up the issue of not ordaining women. God will use whomever he chooses to fulfill His purpose. Who are you to say whether or not that person can be a man or not?