P
placido
Guest
But does the text really mean what you seem to imply? Was 1 Corinthians written by Paul? Was Paul married? If not, then we have to find an alternative meaning of being “accompanied by a wife”.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
I was just responding to someone’s question about where the idea originated that all the Apostles were married. I am not “implying” anything.
Yes, I Cor. was written by Paul, no, Paul was a celibate, and strongly advocated celibacy.
Why do we need an alternative meaning?
P
placido
Guest
Because saying “Paul was married” (and went around with his wife) and also saying Paul was celibate would be contradictory. Therefore “wife” does not mean “wife”, it means something else; that is the alternative I am talking about.
Bu I am satisfied with the rest of your response. It cleared things up.
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh, I see. Now I am cleared up too!
M
Miriam1947
Guest
When I see this question: Why can’t priests marry?
The first answer that comes to mind is: Because that old meany the Catholic Church said no.
Just kidding, guys.
The first answer that comes to mind is: Because that old meany the Catholic Church said no.
Just kidding, guys.
G
guanophore
Guest
I always think “why can’t we practice polygamy”? If you are married to the Bride of Christ, getting married would enable you to begin a harem of sorts.When I see this question: Why can’t priests marry?
The first answer that comes to mind is: Because that old meany the Catholic Church said no.
Just kidding, guys.
R
rinnie
Guest
Oh? So then Jesus was married also? He must have forgot to mention that to His Mother, His Apostles, to the world then.
E
Esdra
Guest
Hm, Islam is partly also build on a gnostic sect (here are the “Christian” parts from), so, for them Jesus was indeed married (to marry Magdalene).
I’ve read an interesting article once that states, that Mohammed probably never got in touch with orthodox Christianity. (at that time the Early Catholic Church)
and because elwill once has stated (in another thread) that Mohammed couldn’t read and write,
At that time hardly noone could read and write, and for sure not those tribes in the desert in the Arabian Peninsula.
No, he got the informations he dictated to his scribes (forming the Qu’ran) concerning Judaism and “Christianity” by TALKING to these people.
That’s like a Muslim talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses today and thinking that he has talked to orthodox Christians. (Like the dad of a collegue of mine who is Muslim, once did.) - So Mohammed talked to missionaries of an early Christian sect (probably Gnosticism).
in Christ,
H
Hail_Linus
Guest
As I said above the Greek text does not really say “wife” it actually says sister (adelphaen) wife (gunaika.). It is very possible that some were in celibate marriages. I believe this is very possible because contrary to popular belief, celibacy in the priesthood of the latin rite did not begin with the prohibition against marriage. There is evidence that shows that married priests in the Latin church were expected to be celibate. To me this is interesting since Joseph was in a celibate marriage with Mary (in Catholic Theology).
However, I believe Paul was clearly celibate and had no “sister wife”.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
Achristiantoo,
Why bother with St. Peter, there is someone greater than peter Here, and he is Jesus Christ. My point is was Jesus Christ Married? No!
Luke 18: 28 Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. 29 Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30 Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
A Catholic Priest is a man who leaves all things, for the Kingdom of God. Amen
Achristiantoo, Don’t try to take away, not that you can, mind you, a gift/Grace of celibacy from the Catholic Church.
St. Peter, Left his Wife left all to Follow the Lord, it says so above in scripture.
Ufamtobie
F
formerlysure
Guest
A
Andromedus
Guest
It isn’t a teaching, however it is a tradition within the Latin rite, in the Eastern rites there are married priests but the bishops has to be unmarried. And there is also some special cases in the Western Church. Another reason is that it might be hard to be a priest and married at the same time, both of those things requires much responsibility. But others has already pointed this out. I also think there is another practical reason for having unmarried and celibate priests. We can se from history that there has been some bad and corrupt priests, even bishops and popes, who have favored their family and been more interested in the wellbeing of their relatives than the Church etc. If we had married Clergy it could have been even worse, for example, perhaps the position of a Bishop could be inherited or something like that which has sometimes been the case in Protestant countries. I think it is obvious that there could have been some bad consequences for the Church.
F
formerlysure
Guest
I earlier reposted a quote and meant to respond to it - due to a problem with my computer it appeared I was just copying it to agree with it.
In correction, this is what I arrive at not as a scholar of teh church but just as a person who understands language and logic.
There is an often stated viewpoint that celibacy is discipline and not doctrine. There is often a church position that priests do not choose to be priests - the priesthood is a divine calling. As such, if a priest is called to the priesthood by God, and the church “discipline” does not permit him to be married, celibacy is for that priest doctrine- immovable, unchangeable church law. For that particular man there is no choice whatsoever, and that particular man is every man called to the priesthood in the Roman rite. Unless, that is, he is converting from priesthood in the Episcopal faith. Episcopals are shown greater consideration than men who have devoted their entire lives to Catholicism in this regard.
Why do we not simply say “no, you can’t be a Catholic priest” to Episcopals, just as we say to life-long Catholics who have married but had a change of heart, become more devout and now wish to be a priest?
The whole argument that celibacy is a choice is hogwash because the priesthood itself is not a choice. It is a requirement - law, doctrine. Let’s at least be honest about the vernacular we use as a Church instead of both requiring this of priests, often against their wishes and against their opinions and interpretations, and then act like “well, it’s the choice you made”. No, it’s not their choice. It’s their calling to be a priest, and this celibacy thing tags along with that calling.
I also object to this language that the church is the bride of the priest. Rediculous. A Church cannot be a bride any more than a woman can be an institution. If it is a bride, let’s evaluate the Church role in this marriage, against the teaching of the church of the role of the man in a marriage. The bride is meant to submit to the husband. The husband is meant to be the head of the household. The husband and wife are meant to consumate their marriage, and are not to deny children that would come into that marriage. By these standards, the Church does not make for a very good Catholic bride. No disrespect meant to point these things out - it’s just that brides and churches are like pots and cats - they aren’t the same thing.
Further, we have to look at how each party is treated in the marriage. What would we think of a Catholic bride who controls all of the money that her husband earns? She determines what job he will take or not take, how he will dress, where he will live and with whom he will keep company. She will make really all the key decisions in his life and his role is to submit to all of those choices. In fact, she will tell him what to think, what he can and cannot say. She will choose who else lives in his home, when he retires, whether he can visit a sick relative and when and for how long. If he recieves money from family or other sources, she will determine whether he can have it or not. She will carefully attend to his relationships with others. For example, he will only be permitted to be friends with women if they are old or ugly or related to him - he cannot maintain close personal relationships with the women he knew in college or high school, for example as even if the relationships are appropriate and supportive of his vocation, he must avoid not only actual scandalous behavior, but he cannot do anything that someone else might consider potentially scandalous. She will determine his retirement, his burial - everything. The husband makes one decision - whether to enter into the marriage - after that, it’s all up to the wife. Is this the model of Catholic marriage? I think not.
It’s interesting that all of these aspects of the priesthood are consistent with the warning signs of an abusive relationship. We could also say to an abused spouse who is being controlled by her husband, “you agreed to your marriage - that was your one choice, now you must submit to your husband”. Few among us would consider that rational and would say, “but wait, the husband is suposed to also respect the wife!” What does that respect mean though - total submission?
Why do some spouses demand total submission? Fear that the other spouse will not fall in line and do as told. Fear that the other spouse might have some ideas of their own - perhaps they might decide to leave, or argue back. Perhaps the controlled spouse, if not fully controlled, might begin to see that they are worth being treated better. They might actually develop some expectations! An expectation of total submission is about control, and what better way to control a man than to control his sexuality and money?
I personally love the Catholic church but unlike God, our Church is not perfect. Our Church does not have a well formed understanding of women or of the marriage relationship, which it portrays as a “burden” on the man in discussions of celibacy. Our church is an overly controlling spouse to our priests. If we restore these priests and allow them to also be men, not instead of being devoted priests but in support of being stronger priests, our Church can thrive, as can our priests.
If we want submission to celibacy to be a choice of priests that strengthens their role as priests, let them truly choose it. At present there is no choice available.
In correction, this is what I arrive at not as a scholar of teh church but just as a person who understands language and logic.
There is an often stated viewpoint that celibacy is discipline and not doctrine. There is often a church position that priests do not choose to be priests - the priesthood is a divine calling. As such, if a priest is called to the priesthood by God, and the church “discipline” does not permit him to be married, celibacy is for that priest doctrine- immovable, unchangeable church law. For that particular man there is no choice whatsoever, and that particular man is every man called to the priesthood in the Roman rite. Unless, that is, he is converting from priesthood in the Episcopal faith. Episcopals are shown greater consideration than men who have devoted their entire lives to Catholicism in this regard.
Why do we not simply say “no, you can’t be a Catholic priest” to Episcopals, just as we say to life-long Catholics who have married but had a change of heart, become more devout and now wish to be a priest?
The whole argument that celibacy is a choice is hogwash because the priesthood itself is not a choice. It is a requirement - law, doctrine. Let’s at least be honest about the vernacular we use as a Church instead of both requiring this of priests, often against their wishes and against their opinions and interpretations, and then act like “well, it’s the choice you made”. No, it’s not their choice. It’s their calling to be a priest, and this celibacy thing tags along with that calling.
I also object to this language that the church is the bride of the priest. Rediculous. A Church cannot be a bride any more than a woman can be an institution. If it is a bride, let’s evaluate the Church role in this marriage, against the teaching of the church of the role of the man in a marriage. The bride is meant to submit to the husband. The husband is meant to be the head of the household. The husband and wife are meant to consumate their marriage, and are not to deny children that would come into that marriage. By these standards, the Church does not make for a very good Catholic bride. No disrespect meant to point these things out - it’s just that brides and churches are like pots and cats - they aren’t the same thing.
Further, we have to look at how each party is treated in the marriage. What would we think of a Catholic bride who controls all of the money that her husband earns? She determines what job he will take or not take, how he will dress, where he will live and with whom he will keep company. She will make really all the key decisions in his life and his role is to submit to all of those choices. In fact, she will tell him what to think, what he can and cannot say. She will choose who else lives in his home, when he retires, whether he can visit a sick relative and when and for how long. If he recieves money from family or other sources, she will determine whether he can have it or not. She will carefully attend to his relationships with others. For example, he will only be permitted to be friends with women if they are old or ugly or related to him - he cannot maintain close personal relationships with the women he knew in college or high school, for example as even if the relationships are appropriate and supportive of his vocation, he must avoid not only actual scandalous behavior, but he cannot do anything that someone else might consider potentially scandalous. She will determine his retirement, his burial - everything. The husband makes one decision - whether to enter into the marriage - after that, it’s all up to the wife. Is this the model of Catholic marriage? I think not.
It’s interesting that all of these aspects of the priesthood are consistent with the warning signs of an abusive relationship. We could also say to an abused spouse who is being controlled by her husband, “you agreed to your marriage - that was your one choice, now you must submit to your husband”. Few among us would consider that rational and would say, “but wait, the husband is suposed to also respect the wife!” What does that respect mean though - total submission?
Why do some spouses demand total submission? Fear that the other spouse will not fall in line and do as told. Fear that the other spouse might have some ideas of their own - perhaps they might decide to leave, or argue back. Perhaps the controlled spouse, if not fully controlled, might begin to see that they are worth being treated better. They might actually develop some expectations! An expectation of total submission is about control, and what better way to control a man than to control his sexuality and money?
I personally love the Catholic church but unlike God, our Church is not perfect. Our Church does not have a well formed understanding of women or of the marriage relationship, which it portrays as a “burden” on the man in discussions of celibacy. Our church is an overly controlling spouse to our priests. If we restore these priests and allow them to also be men, not instead of being devoted priests but in support of being stronger priests, our Church can thrive, as can our priests.
If we want submission to celibacy to be a choice of priests that strengthens their role as priests, let them truly choose it. At present there is no choice available.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is not a viewpoint. This is the position of the Church. Since it is a discipline, it can be changed, like the rules for fasting, etc. Doctrines cannot be changed. For example, it is a doctrine of the faith that celibacy is a gift from God, and that people to whom it is given should receive it. This cannot be changed.
Both things can be true. The priesthood is a divine calling, but an individual must also choose to embrace this calling. And also, the church must validate the calling, and also choose to ordain the priest.
No, Church laws can be moved and changed. You are right, though, that because the discipline is currently in effect, one who is called to be a priest is expected to submit to this requirement.
This is false. Celibacy cannot be mandated, any more than marriage. Candidates go through many years of discernment. When they choose the priesthood, they also choose celibacy.
Not only Episcopals, but also other Protestants that are converting. But, even for those who are received, there are rules about their service. Married priests are not assigned as pastors because they are not as free to tend to the flock.
Most often they are told “no”. If they are responding to the call of God, and they accept “no” then God will work things out. A Catholic who has been married can still become a priest under certain circumstances.
God gave the Church authority to bind and to loose (legislate/make disciplines). He will work within any rules that are made to accomplish His sovereign will. Most persons who enter seminary are not ordained as priests. God draws people to Himself along certain paths, and He writes straight with crooked lines.
There are different levels of requirements. Doctrine holds the highest levels. Church laws can also be revised, but are the standards by which activity in the Church is governed. Disciplines are the easiest to change, but they are also based upon laws and doctrines. It is true that often times people are called to a lifestyl that is “against their wishes, opinions and interpretations”. For example, a married man may have an opinion or interpretation that his wish to be sexually intimate with a woman who is not his wife should be allowed. Unfortunately, his “opinion, wish and interpretation” violates God’s law. A person who is homosexual may have a “wish, opinion and interpretation” of Scripture and God that makes him feel it is ok for him to be sexually active with members of his own gender. Now, the Church can say “this behavior is a mortal sin”,a nd maybe he will obey the Church, but that would not be his preference, or first choice. Whenever a person gives up what they “wish” or want to serve God, God will reward that person.
You sound angry.
The Church is the Bride of Christ. This is the way God created her. I can appreciate that it defies logic, but that is why it is called a “mystery”. A priest is taken up into the one priesthood of Christ, and lays down his life for the sheep.
It is a spiritual consummation, and the children are spiritual. This is why they are called “father”.
G
guanophore
Guest
How do you think the Church is not a good bride? She is called “Mother” because she cares for her children, and like our Mother Mary, brings them to Christ.
It seems like you are trying to make sense of the mystical marriage from a secular point of view. The concepts are spiritual. The assets are spiritual. The Church does not “control” the members. She guides, teaches, and protects them so they can reach heaven.
It seems like you have gone way overboard here. What Church document can you produce that the Church tells anyone “what to think”? Of course priests are under authorities, as we all are. There are certain times when we are all told to be silent on a given matter, or to speak up on others. The Church is incarnational. Her head is Christ, and her Soul is the Holy Spirit. She also has bishops who are responsible for shepherding the faithful. The priest serves at the pleasure of the bishop and is expected to obey him.
This depends upon the type of priest he is, and other vows he has taken. Not all priests take vows of poverty.
I am not going to respond to this paragraph because you seem to be on a rant, and you are starting to sound very resentful and frankly, not quite in touch with reality.
Yes, from a worldly point of view, I can see how it would seem this way. But, from the Kingdom point of view, the priest is a radical sign of what it means to have a life fully consecrated to God. When Jesus commanded that we are to pick up our cross and follow Him, he did not avoid any abuse Himself. He laid down His life, fully, and finally, and even forgave His abusers. The priest follows in His footsteps by renouncing ALL and following Him to that cross where his life is poured out in service. People who picked up the cross had no life to which they could cling. They walked under a death sentence.
I think Jesus called upon us to pick up the cross because He knew that severing attachments to worldly desires was where we would find our deepest happiness.
The Church is, indeed, perfect. Granted, some of the human beings attached to her are in need of improvement. If you cannot see that the Church has a divine nature, then your understanding of what “church” is suffers from deficiency. Besides, your notion that a wife is a 'burden" is not consistent with the Teaching of the Church. The Church considers that a married man already has a vocation as a husband that should be supported and cherished.
Clearly you do not understand the power of the gift of celibacy, and why it is so important to the Church that we have this.
You sound disgruntled and resentful. Maybe this is very personal for you?
F
formerlysure
Guest
I am not on an angry rant but rather honestly expressing the views of millions of Catholics who share my belief that celibacy should be optional, and that it is disingenuous to call celibacy a choice when it is a requirement of the priesthood which is a devine calling. I do understand that many priests cherish and honor celibacy as essential to their vocation and I feel that they should be supported and lauded for their choice, but it should be a choice.
Asking a priest to choose between marriage and the priesthood is asking him to choose between dual callings-gifts- from God. Who are we to force him to choose between two things God has put in front of him? If God chooses to make the man both husband and priest, why can we not thank Him and honor Him by supporting the priest’s grateful and reverent receipt of both?
There is a clear difference between the behavior of a healthy marriage by a priest with a woman and the other behaviors sighted, such as a married man having sex outside of marriage. One is healthy, normal and the typical arrangement for clergy in every other religion pretty much except the Roman rite of the Catholic church. Even the Vatican does not expect it consistently. The other - cheating on one’s wife - is a sin. As is having same sex physical relations. Marriage is not a sin. It should not be compared to sinful behaviors as an equivalent.
If we are to take the Bible so literally, why not say that priests should be chosen among married men who leave their wives and children behind, just as Jesus asked the Apostles to do? Because to do so would be absolutely rediculous. He wasn’t asking them to abandon nor relinquish their responsibility for family, but rather was making clear that to follow him, they had to literally follow him - travel - in a time and in ways that were impractical and dangerous for the inclusion of their wives and children. In modern days, Jesus would likely have flown them home for the weekend - truly. He wasn’t creating a hardship to create a hardship, but rather was advising them of the practical reality of what was involved - the necessary sacrifice of leaving family for extended periods of time in order to spread the Word of God. Today, it is mercifully and totally unecessary and I seriously doubt Jesus would erect false sacrifices - unecessary sacrifice - given he was the image of mercy and love.
I stand by my position that God is perfect but the Catholic church is not perfect as an institution. Did you not read about the thousands of abused children? There were three found guilty in the parish I grew up in alone - and I know of a fourth who died before charges could be filed. If the Church were perfect, such things would not have happened and such men would not have been ordained and our beautiful churches would not have been the hiding place for such sickness. We can go back as far as the crusades and as recent as arguments between members of the church community, such as recent debacles about Fr. Flaeger in Chicago, to see that dissent is common in the church, and where there is dissent, at least one individual is wrong. The Church is made up of people -people are flawed. Even priests sin - where there is sin, perfection has not yet been achieved.
I draw the parallels to abusive relationships only because it is concerning that when something simply defies common sense, the argument about the point being a divine mystery is put forth. Yes, there are divine mysteries but that reality should not be used to defend against honest criticism of the aspects of the church that are not doctrinal, not devine - we should be critical of ourselves and of the men and women who make up what is “The Church”, as only if we do so - only if we say, “Lord, we’ve built this Church in your honor to celebrate and live as you’ve taught us but we are deeply flawed” can we begin to go about the real work of taking honest, ongoing inventory of ourselves as individuals and as an institution to make sure things like the pedophile rings and protection thereof do not happen again. We should not tolerate our religion to be used as a bandage to protect bad decisions, bad operations but should rather have more respect.
As I see it, just as a parent should not overlook flaws in their children but should rather lovingly work with the child to change them, we as parishioners should do the same for this creation of ours - this Church we have inherited, and will pass down to future generations. While I respect those who disagree, I strongly believe celibacy should be a choice of the priest and not a condition of priesthood. I disagree that one has to be "angry
or characterized as being “on a rant” when attempting to soberly lay out the argument that represents the viewpoint of so many devout Catholics worldwide.
Asking a priest to choose between marriage and the priesthood is asking him to choose between dual callings-gifts- from God. Who are we to force him to choose between two things God has put in front of him? If God chooses to make the man both husband and priest, why can we not thank Him and honor Him by supporting the priest’s grateful and reverent receipt of both?
There is a clear difference between the behavior of a healthy marriage by a priest with a woman and the other behaviors sighted, such as a married man having sex outside of marriage. One is healthy, normal and the typical arrangement for clergy in every other religion pretty much except the Roman rite of the Catholic church. Even the Vatican does not expect it consistently. The other - cheating on one’s wife - is a sin. As is having same sex physical relations. Marriage is not a sin. It should not be compared to sinful behaviors as an equivalent.
If we are to take the Bible so literally, why not say that priests should be chosen among married men who leave their wives and children behind, just as Jesus asked the Apostles to do? Because to do so would be absolutely rediculous. He wasn’t asking them to abandon nor relinquish their responsibility for family, but rather was making clear that to follow him, they had to literally follow him - travel - in a time and in ways that were impractical and dangerous for the inclusion of their wives and children. In modern days, Jesus would likely have flown them home for the weekend - truly. He wasn’t creating a hardship to create a hardship, but rather was advising them of the practical reality of what was involved - the necessary sacrifice of leaving family for extended periods of time in order to spread the Word of God. Today, it is mercifully and totally unecessary and I seriously doubt Jesus would erect false sacrifices - unecessary sacrifice - given he was the image of mercy and love.
I stand by my position that God is perfect but the Catholic church is not perfect as an institution. Did you not read about the thousands of abused children? There were three found guilty in the parish I grew up in alone - and I know of a fourth who died before charges could be filed. If the Church were perfect, such things would not have happened and such men would not have been ordained and our beautiful churches would not have been the hiding place for such sickness. We can go back as far as the crusades and as recent as arguments between members of the church community, such as recent debacles about Fr. Flaeger in Chicago, to see that dissent is common in the church, and where there is dissent, at least one individual is wrong. The Church is made up of people -people are flawed. Even priests sin - where there is sin, perfection has not yet been achieved.
I draw the parallels to abusive relationships only because it is concerning that when something simply defies common sense, the argument about the point being a divine mystery is put forth. Yes, there are divine mysteries but that reality should not be used to defend against honest criticism of the aspects of the church that are not doctrinal, not devine - we should be critical of ourselves and of the men and women who make up what is “The Church”, as only if we do so - only if we say, “Lord, we’ve built this Church in your honor to celebrate and live as you’ve taught us but we are deeply flawed” can we begin to go about the real work of taking honest, ongoing inventory of ourselves as individuals and as an institution to make sure things like the pedophile rings and protection thereof do not happen again. We should not tolerate our religion to be used as a bandage to protect bad decisions, bad operations but should rather have more respect.
As I see it, just as a parent should not overlook flaws in their children but should rather lovingly work with the child to change them, we as parishioners should do the same for this creation of ours - this Church we have inherited, and will pass down to future generations. While I respect those who disagree, I strongly believe celibacy should be a choice of the priest and not a condition of priesthood. I disagree that one has to be "angry
or characterized as being “on a rant” when attempting to soberly lay out the argument that represents the viewpoint of so many devout Catholics worldwide.
N
Nicea325
Guest
No offense,but your personal belief is not the standard, norm or dictation to Christ Church. If you cannot handle or accept celibacy,then take it up with Jesus. What does Jesus say about it? And those million of Catholics also share your belief that marriage and being single should be an option?
G
guanophore
Guest
What I think you are saying is that you and “millions of Catholics” want to rant against the Church’s decision to choose for priests from among those that are called to Celibacy. Celibacy is a gift - a calling. Jesus taught that those who are called into this gift “should receive it”. From among those that do, the Church chooses her priests. Neither celibacy, or priesthood, are “rights” or “privileges”. They are vocations, to which each one called has the “option” to choose. They can embrace the call, or refuse it.
Yes. This is right on!
The Church selects from among those called to celibacy, and she affirms the Sacrament of Marriage as a full time vocation. It is not just the man choosing, though, it is a joint process of discernment in which those who assist the candidate in discovering his vocation search together for God’s will
No one can “force” either possibility. This is not how the Holy Spirit works. If he wishes, he can deny both possibilities, and spend his life drinking, drugging, and having an early death.
Or he may decide that he is called to marriage, then later seek ordination in the diaconate.
This is done, of course, when a person who has been previously married enters the priesthood.
Yes, of course. The goal was to show you that a persons opinions, inclinations, and wishes are not the foundation upon which moral decisions should be made.
The requirements for priesthood are unlike those of clergy in “every other religion”. They stand in the person of Christ, and they enter into His priesthood. He gives His Holy Bride into their care.
If you believe this, then you should pray that God reveals this to the Magesterium. At the present time, they deem that this kind of sacrifice is exactly what the Church desperately needs.
The Church is built upon fallible men, and fallible men will always be prone to error.
I think you are confusing the Holy Bride of Christ with the sinners who have been made members of Her by grace. The divine elements of the Church can never be sullied, no matter how many of her members may sin. If the Magesterium, which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, needs to relax this discipline, then I am sure God will reveal this to them. Or do you think He lost his voice? I recommend a read of the letters to the Churches in Revelation. He is perfectly capable of letting the Church know what needs to be changed.
That is understandible. We have embraced a number of mysteries in our faith, and many of them "simply defy common sense.
F
formerlysure
Guest
I think calling an opposing but thoughtfully expressed opinion a “rant” is disrespectful, and to claim that I mean to say that millions including me want to rant, when I previously stated that I think the opposite and mean the opposite is unnecessarily rude. God reveals himself in many ways including through human thought and discourse.
He does not reveal himself or speak in these ways only to those with whom either you agree, or I agree. We all are His children and all can listen to him.
I am open to changing my mind and often can be pursuaded but not yet on this issue. When those putting forth an alternate view to that I hold are disrespectful and name calling and acting like they have some hotline to God that others don’t, it weakens their credibility in my mind, so a different approach might be better. Just my opinion for what it is worth.
Tell most serious people trying to express their opinion, take the approach of claiming that they are ranting, along with everone who agrees with them, and they will likely similarly dismiss you and whatever you have to say.
He does not reveal himself or speak in these ways only to those with whom either you agree, or I agree. We all are His children and all can listen to him.
I am open to changing my mind and often can be pursuaded but not yet on this issue. When those putting forth an alternate view to that I hold are disrespectful and name calling and acting like they have some hotline to God that others don’t, it weakens their credibility in my mind, so a different approach might be better. Just my opinion for what it is worth.
Tell most serious people trying to express their opinion, take the approach of claiming that they are ranting, along with everone who agrees with them, and they will likely similarly dismiss you and whatever you have to say.
R
rinnie
Guest
Formerlysure, I think that you need to re-think some of the things you are saying.
Let me begin with how you feel its unfair to ask a Priest to choose between God and a family. Think about this. You need to realize 2 things.
First of all when a Man becomes a Priest it is a higher calling from God. Next he chooses to answer this call by his own free will. ANd it is by help from the higher DIVINE that this calling is accomplished.
God never gives you more then you can handle. You are thinking on what YOU could handle and not handle, and I agree with you. So does God, or you would have been also called to this service.
We all have different gifts. BUT the big thing is we are ALL CALLED to use our gifts in differemt ways. Some to have children, be Parents, Mothers, Wives, Etc.
But when a Man is called from DIVINE to become a Priest and forego a family and marriage this is asked of him from God. Who are we to judge what is fair in the eyes of the Lord.
God creates us for many things. Look at this another way. What if you decided to not marry and not have children. What would you say if I said, that is not right. You should be married and have ten children. Do you see my point now? We all receive different Grace from God, and its our choice how WE use it.
When a Man gets this calling from God he is happy, and fulfilled in his life. Is that not what life is about, being fullfilled and doing Gods work. How could any higher happiness in this world be accomplished. God created that Man to do his work in that way, What do you feel another human being could accomplish in a persons soul that God could not surpass?
Let me begin with how you feel its unfair to ask a Priest to choose between God and a family. Think about this. You need to realize 2 things.
First of all when a Man becomes a Priest it is a higher calling from God. Next he chooses to answer this call by his own free will. ANd it is by help from the higher DIVINE that this calling is accomplished.
God never gives you more then you can handle. You are thinking on what YOU could handle and not handle, and I agree with you. So does God, or you would have been also called to this service.
We all have different gifts. BUT the big thing is we are ALL CALLED to use our gifts in differemt ways. Some to have children, be Parents, Mothers, Wives, Etc.
But when a Man is called from DIVINE to become a Priest and forego a family and marriage this is asked of him from God. Who are we to judge what is fair in the eyes of the Lord.
God creates us for many things. Look at this another way. What if you decided to not marry and not have children. What would you say if I said, that is not right. You should be married and have ten children. Do you see my point now? We all receive different Grace from God, and its our choice how WE use it.
When a Man gets this calling from God he is happy, and fulfilled in his life. Is that not what life is about, being fullfilled and doing Gods work. How could any higher happiness in this world be accomplished. God created that Man to do his work in that way, What do you feel another human being could accomplish in a persons soul that God could not surpass?
- Status