why can't priests marry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter achristiantoo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why can’t priests marry?

Priests could marry as did Jesus and Mary; it is not forbidden to marry. Celibacy was started by Paul not by Jesus or Mary.
 
ibneahmad said:
why can’t priests marry?

Priests could marry as did Jesus and Mary; it is not forbidden to marry. Celibacy was started by Paul not by Jesus or Mary.
Click to expand...
That’s not official Christian theology.

A sect called Gnostics believed that Jesus was married to Mary (Magdalene). But Gnosticism is not Christianity.

Nobody says that marriage is forbidden. Paul “only” writes:

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. (1 Cor 7:8-10, NIV)

So, for me, being a non-Catholic Christian, it is not a command, but a recommandation and for me nothing speaks against it (at least not judging from these Bible verses) that a married men can also become priests.
 
ConstantineTG said:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 7:25-28[/BIBLEDRB]

Semantics. Prohibition means something cannot be done. The discipline calls for ordination of celibate men. Therefore there is a prohibition on ordination of married men. There are exceptions, but of course we’re discussing the norm here.
Click to expand...
No, is not “semantics”. The Apostles never prohibit marriage, and therefore the Church does not. Paul strongly encourages celibacy in this passage, but does NOT order it, or prohibit marriage. It is essential that Catholics accurately represent this, because fundamentalists cast aspersions upon the Church with regard to this teaching. They erroneously believe that the Church prohibits marriage, which she does not. It is one of the reason they think the Catholic Church is no longer Christian. or consistent with the Bible. They think this passage:

1 Tim 4:1-4
4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 **who forbid marriage **and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

is proof Catholics have departed from the faith and espoused doctrines of demons.

Further, there is not a “prohibition” on the ordination of married men. There are married priests, and those who are married before they are recieved (Protestants) may enter the priesthood under certain circumstances. The 22 Eastern Catholic Rites also ordain married men.

The Latin rite chooses for priests from among those who are called to celibacy. They freely choose the celibate life in seeking priesthood.
 
ibneahmad said:
why can’t priests marry?

Priests could marry as did Jesus and Mary; it is not forbidden to marry. Celibacy was started by Paul not by Jesus or Mary.
Click to expand...
You have been misinformed, ibneahmad. The practice of celibacy existed in Judaism long before Christ. Jesus encouraged those who are called to this gift to receive it. Paul did the same.

Mary and Joseph chose to lead a celibate life decades before Paul taught about the value of it.
 
guanophore said:
You have been misinformed, ibneahmad. The practice of celibacy existed in Judaism long before Christ. Jesus encouraged those who are called to this gift to receive it. Paul did the same.

Mary and Joseph chose to lead a celibate life decades before Paul taught about the value of it.
Click to expand...
When did Mary and Joseph get married?

Matthew 1:24-25 says that Joseph married Mary prior to Jesus’ birth, yet Luke describes Mary as “pledged to be married” to Joseph when they traveled to Bethlehem (Lk 2:5), using the same word (mnesteuo) used to describe their status in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:27. Luke may have chosen to describe them as betrothed rather than married since they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born (though they were ceremonially married).

rationalchristianity.net/jesus_infancy.html
 
There are plenty of married priests in the Latin Rite as well, and the number is growing as our separated brethren cross the Tiber with their wives.
Click to expand...
There are many married priests in the Latin Rite as well. However, there are no priest, Latin or any other rite, which get married.

A married man can become a priest.

A priest can not become a married man.

It’s also important to note, that although it is possible for a married man to become a priest, that does not mean the marriage is an aid to his priesthood. Celibacy for priests has very good reasons.

In the words of one Eastern Rite priest I know: “To be a married priest is to be a failure at everything you do”.

That may be a little harsh, and there are obvious exceptions for men blessed with exceptional graces, St. Peter for example, but point is generally valid I think.

Pax.
 
There is no such restriction from Jesus and Mary; it is Paul’s heretical act.

I read somewhere that Paul wanted to marry the daughter of Caiaphas: the Jewish high priest who had a role in the cricifixion of Jesus but he did not agree to give her daughter’s hand to Paul; perhaps Paul was disgusted and did not got married.

Sorry; I don’t remember the reference. Anyone who remembers, please.
 
ibneahmad said:
When did Mary and Joseph get married?

Matthew 1:24-25 says that Joseph married Mary prior to Jesus’ birth, yet Luke describes Mary as “pledged to be married” to Joseph when they traveled to Bethlehem (Lk 2:5), using the same word (mnesteuo) used to describe their status in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:27. Luke may have chosen to describe them as betrothed rather than married since they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born (though they were ceremonially married).

rationalchristianity.net/jesus_infancy.html
Click to expand...
Yes, they were considered married in the eyes of the Law. That is how Joseph could be Jesus’ lawful father. Did you realize that celibate marriages were practiced long before these people were born?
 
ibneahmad said:
Code: 
 There is no such restriction from Jesus and Mary; it is Paul's heretical act.
Click to expand...
What is “Paul’s heretical act”? His choice to be celibate? His encouragement toward the celibate lifestyle?

Do you honestly believe that the celibate life is heresy?
ibneahmad said:
I read somewhere that Paul wanted to marry the daughter of Caiaphas: the Jewish high priest who had a role in the cricifixion of Jesus but he did not agree to give her daughter’s hand to Paul; perhaps Paul was disgusted and did not got married.

Sorry; I don’t remember the reference. Anyone who remembers, please.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with such a reference, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s say it is true. It would have been Saul who sought the marriage (pre-Jesus Paul of Tarsus). After he met Jesus, he left everything to follow Him. Can you find anything in his writings that he is “disgusted” about marriage?
 
I think it would be very difficult for Muslim men to believe any man could live a celibate life or a Muslim wife have multiple partners.

My son just met a Turk up in his work in Alaska. The Turk told him at end of time there that his father asked him, the son, to return and kill his sister because she lost her virginity.

Also Muslims do not understand Judeo Christianity, and some how have very strange ideas about St. Paul.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The prohibition of marriage of priests is a teaching by St. Paul in his Epistles. What the Roman Church has prohibited is the ordination of married men. Eastern Churches still ordain married men.
Click to expand...
That simple is not true, St. Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:
Qualifications for Overseers 3 1‡‡†The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2†Therefore an overseer[1] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[2] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3†not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4‡He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6†He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7†Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Concordia Publishing House; Edward A. Engelbrecht (2009-10-31). The Lutheran Study Bible (Kindle Locations 141722-141733). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
 
guanophore said:
This is also a falsehood. This is not the reason God instituted marriage.

Luther is misusing the instruction on relaxing the rigors to enable sexual license.

This is as much an inaccurate myth today as it was 500 years ago.

What he seems to be saying is that failure to keep one’s vows to the Church will be ameliorated by taking more vows to a wife and family. What makes anyone think that a faithless man will become faithful by abandoning one set of vows for another?

The reasonm that societies “adorn marriage with the greatest praise” is BECAUSE of the teaching of the Church.

It is regrettable that anyone is put to death for faithlessness in one’s vows, but it is also inaccurate to say it is “for no other reason”. A person who has abandoned one’s vows and is disobedient to one’s bishop is not fit for ministry. In our modern society, we would not inflict the death penalty on such a person, but neither would they be permitted to serve in ministry.

This is more falsehood, as the Church does not prohibit marriage. Rather, marriage is encouraged, and fornication is prohibited. The right of the Church to choose from among those called to celibacy does not prohibit marriage to anyone.

So, when a person freely takes a vow to espouse the bride of Christ, this is ok to nullify? What kind of sense does this make? It is not even logical.

This is absolutly true. Any ordained person who is unwilling or unable to persevere in their vows, and has been set afire by their lusts is clearly not fit for ministry. They need to be removed from active service for a time of prayer, healing, and discernment, or discharge completely from the duty of priesthood, at which time they may marry and pursue the lust that has apparently overtaken them.
Click to expand...
Question, was not St. Peter still married after the crucifixion of Our Lord?
 
ibneahmad said:
Yes,It is against the creation of human life.
Click to expand...
I believe that’s typical Muslim thinking… (And even similar to LDS thinking. Interesting, never realized that parallel that clearly so far…)

I wouldn’t consider living in celibacy a heresy.

Jesus himself says, "12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. " (Matthew 19:12; KJV)

So, I would - *although I am against celibate priests (at least that they are “forced” to be so, if they want to become a Catholic priest (letting aside the Anglicans who converted)) - *see celibacy as a gift. I do think that monks or nuns who stay celibate for the sake of Christ as something very noble. And I have great respect for them.

Jesus himself never was married, and so was Paul and some Apostles.

My problem with the CC is that it doesn’t let men the choice: Either they become priests and then **have to ** (so in that sense they ARE forced, although guanophore will naturally disagree with me here, right guan? ;)) live a celibate life, or they can’t become priests and can marry. Period.

I think it’s comparable to other gifts, like those which Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthian: Either you have it or not, but I think the gift of celibacy shouldn’t be a hindrance to not become a priest, if you want to.
 
I believe that’s typical Muslim thinking… (that living in celibacy is against the creation of human life and a heresy.) (And even similar to LDS thinking. Interesting, never realized that parallel that clearly so far…)

I wouldn’t consider living in celibacy a heresy.

Jesus himself says, "12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. " (Matthew 19:12; KJV)

So, I would - *although I am against celibate priests (at least that they are “forced” to be so, if they want to become a Catholic priest (letting aside the Anglicans who converted)) - *see celibacy as a gift. I do think that monks or nuns who stay celibate for the sake of Christ as something very noble. And I have great respect for them.
 
hn160 said:
That simple is not true, St. Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:
Qualifications for Overseers 3 1‡‡†The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2†Therefore an overseer[1] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[2] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3†not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4‡He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6†He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7†Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Concordia Publishing House; Edward A. Engelbrecht (2009-10-31). The Lutheran Study Bible (Kindle Locations 141722-141733). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...
What in my statement was contradicted by that? The overseer (bishop) must be husband of one wife. Which means the time he is made a bishop, he could have been married already. So what I said agrees with this, marriage before ordination, not after.
 
ConstantineTG said:
What in my statement was contradicted by that? The overseer (bishop) must be husband of one wife. Which means the time he is made a bishop, he could have been married already. So what I said agrees with this, marriage before ordination, not after.
Click to expand...
You are really doing a stretch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top