Why do Protestants presume to know Catholic doctrine and dogmas when they don't really know it?

[Mannyfit75]

Would you happen to know which rite in the Roman Catholic church that allows this?

Perhaps this can answer your question:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, an authoritative compilation of the Church’s doctrine issued in 1992, recognizes that the practice of ordaining married men has long been considered legitimate in the Eastern Churches and that married priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. (1) At the same time, priestly celibacy is also very honored in the Eastern Churches. Fr. David M. Petras, SEOD considers the priesthood and celibacy as two separate callings and that celibacy is not superior “to the call a couple may receive to the sacramental mystery of marriage.” (2) The practice of having a majority of clergy who were married and some who were celibate existed from the early days of the Church. The two disciplines, which should co-exist in harmony, have often been in tension. The marriage of clerics was practiced from the days of the primitive church. (3). The Gospels emphasize the value of both celibacy and marriage as a means of serving God in the Christian life. Christ is the prime example of celibacy. On the other hand in the defense of marriage, we have the examples of Christ’s sanctifying matrimony at the wedding feast in Cana and of Peter and the brethren of Christ who were married. The Lord’s teaching is that celibacy is a state of eschatological beatitude, that there is no marriage in heaven. If celibacy is undertaken, it must be assumed freely for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19.12, 19). However, the Lord himself pointed out that not all can accept this teaching (Matthew 19.11-12).

The epistles reflect the Early Church’s experience of marriage. Paul, stressing celibacy as a more perfect state (1 Corinthians 7: 26-35), nevertheless did not undervalue marriage and gave abundant advice to married Christians. Paul’s teaching is not regarded as a universal law, but as a counsel regarding a particular charism. The pastoral epistles provide clear evidence that the Pauline churches were ruled by married bishops, presbyters and deacons. In setting down the duties of the married clergy, Paul stipulated that a bishop should be married, but only once, and that he should rule well his own household, keeping his children in order and respectful.

During the patristic age, clerical marriage was permitted before ordination and a cleric could have only one wife. Clement of Alexandria, (c. 150-215) commenting on the Pauline texts, emphasized that marriage, if properly used, is a way of salvation for all: priests, deacons and laymen (curiously he did not mention bishops). In both the Apostolic Canons (2nd-3rd centuries) and the Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400) celibacy was not compulsory. A bishop or priest who left his wife “under pretense of piety” was to be excommunicated. New tendencies at the beginning of the 4th century tried to prohibit clerical marriage while individual choice in the matter had been the rule up to this time. At the first Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) Spanish bishop Ossius of Cordoba wanted the Council to decree celibacy as a requirement for ordination throughout the universal church, but Egyptian bishop Paphnutios (see APPENDIX below) protested that such a rule would be difficult and imprudent and that celibacy should be a matter of vocation and personal choice. The Council endorsed Paphnutios’s position. A few scholars today call into question St. Paphnutios’s intervention at the Council considering his role to be a legend. (4)

Source of the link: byzantines.net/epiphany/ordination.htm

Read it

 

[Mannyfit75]

After the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054, the Orthodox discipline on marriage and celibacy continued as it had been observed in the undivided Church. Fr. Nicon D. Patrinacos succinctly describes the Orthodox position: "celibacy is not compulsory in the Orthodox Church, but bishops are elected only from celibates. Marriage is allowed for deacons and priests but only before ordination. The sacrament of marriage cannot follow the sacrament of priesthood. But from the dogmatic viewpoint there is no evidence either in the thought or in the practice of the Orthodox Church that ordination is a superior sacrament to that of matrimony. " (6)

Toward the end of the 16th century and during the first half of the 17th century, two Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe united themselves with Rome with the unions of Brest-Litovsk and of Uzhhorod. The Union of Brest took place in 1596 among the Orthodox inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which included the palatinate of Rus’ (Galicia) and the Lemko Region west of the San River. Almost a century later the Union was finally accepted by the Orthodox Eparchy of Przemysl/Peremyshl (1692), under whose jurisdiction lay Byzantine-rite churches in the Lemko Region. (7) Before and after these unions with Rome took place both the Church in Ukraine and that in Subcarpathian Rus followed Orthodox practice regarding a married clergy.

 

[justasking4]

Not know for sure? You doubt scripture? We have less in common than I supposed. I thought you at least trusted that Scripture was inerrantly inspired. Don’t know if we really have much more to discuss if you can have any other interpretation of this than that Paul was unmarried. My saving Grace sermon in which God grabbed ahold of my heart was you believe the Bible “cover to cover including the cover, or we have nothing else to talk about”, and if you can read those words and still say “we can’t know for sure” if Paul was unmarried, as the Pastor said, “we have nothing to talk about”

:bible1: 1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

Paul only MAY have been single when Paul himself tells us this in God’s inspired word?

So do you believe Paul was single or only MAY have been single? And when did you change your mind on this and why?

Where in scripture does it say that Paul was unmarried? If anything he alludes that he was married in I Corinthians 9:3-5 where he writes–
3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink?

5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

 

[justasking4]

Perhaps this can answer your question:

Source of the link: byzantines.net/epiphany/ordination.htm

Read it

I’m aware in the past that it was alright for priests to marry. However, what about today? Is it not true that in the Roman Catholic church you cannot enter into the priesthood if you are married? Is this not the rule?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Where in scripture does it say that Paul was unmarried? If anything he alludes that he was married in I Corinthians 9:3-5 where he writes–
3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink?

5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

"…To remain single as I do."
It’s obvious to me that St. Paul was not married.

 

[justasking4]

"…To remain single as I do."
It’s obvious to me that St. Paul was not married.

Where does Paul say…“To remain single as I do”? I don’t see it here.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

:bible1: 1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

Where does Paul say…“To remain single as I do”? I don’t see it here.

Wow. Maybe you need your eyes checked. My own Bible says “alone” instead of “single” but there isn’t that much difference.

 

[justasking4]

:bible1: 1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do

.

Wow. Maybe you need your eyes checked. My own Bible says “alone” instead of “single” but there isn’t that much difference.

Thanks for opening my eyes. Now what does this have to do with a celibate leadership? Where is it stated by him specifically that you must be celibate to lead the church?

 

[justasking4]

No, married men may become bishops. You are incorrect. The Catholic Church is made up of many rites. In some of those rites, married men may become bishops.

Who in the Roman Catholic church is a married bishop? Would you happen to have his name?

Did he marry while he was a priest or bishop?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Tim Kirchoff;2726562:

:bible1: 1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do

.

Thanks for opening my eyes. Now what does this have to do with a celibate leadership? Where is it stated by him specifically that you must be celibate to lead the church?

He doesn’t say that, but he is recommending remaining single. Could Paul have gone on his missionaryjourneys if he had to drag a wife and kids along with? maybe, but itwould ahve been that much harder.

As has been explained, celibacy is a discipline that developed in the Roman rite of Catholocism. It became a requirement in the Roman rite because it generally made a priest’s work easier to accomplish if he didn’t have a family to worry about, say, if he was ministering to lepers. (example)

There are several rites in the Catholic Church, for example, the Byzantine rite. However, the Roman rite is the largest. Some of the other rites allow married priests and bishops.

 

[MariaG]

Would you happen to know which rite in the Roman Catholic church that allows this?

There is no “Roman” Catholic Church. We are the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church, many Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married bishops.

 

[MariaG]

Where in scripture does it say that Paul was unmarried? If anything he alludes that he was married in I Corinthians 9:3-5 where he writes–
3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink?

5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Where does Paul say…“To remain single as I do”? I don’t see it here.

quote=MariaG;2723402]:bible1: 1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

Thanks for opening my eyes. Now what does this have to do with a celibate leadership? Where is it stated by him specifically that you must be celibate to lead the church?

 

[justasking4]

There is no “Roman” Catholic Church. We are the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church, many Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married bishops.

Huh? Then what does Roman Catholic mean? What churches does it encompass?

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;2729047]Where does Paul say…“To remain single as I do”? I don’t see it here.

quote=MariaG;2723402]:bible1: 1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

I posted that very same scripture multiple times, brought it to your attention, yet you did not “see” these clear words until just now. Your critical reading skills in this forum, as well as in scripture really need to improve.

Thanks for the rebuke. I’m sure you haven’t missed anything either. Your certainly far better at this than i am.

What does it have to do with a celibate leadership? Because everyone should desire to give God the Best, and scripture plainly tells us that it is BEST to serve God unmarried.

What you think is best may not be what scripture teaches. Look at I Timothy where Pauls lays out what the requirements for leadership are to be and it has nothing to do with celibacy. If Paul was single when he wrote this he does use that at as a requirement for leadership. He also never appeals to Jesus who was single as model either.

As for the specific rule that one must be celibate to be a Latin Rite priest, this would be when Christ in Matthew 16:19 gave the Church the authority to make and change the rules. This rule is just that, a rule that can be made, based on biblical priciples for what is BEST. This could change and the Church could decide that not everyone needs to choose to offer the best to God.

No church has the authority to circumvent the teachings of scripture. Those that do show that they are teaching falsely.

 

[guanophore]

I’m referring to leadership in the catholic that nullifies him from leadership because he is married. No matter how qualified he is for the position he is disqualified immediately because he is married.

Clearly you are an excellent example of the title of this thread! You think you understand Catholic doctrine when you do not!

A married person is not nullified from leadership because he is married.

He is not disqualified because he is married.

Most of the leaders in the Catholic Church are married persons. Only a very small minority of leaders are clergy, and are celibate. Most of the clergy (deacons) are married.

Do we agree that i am correct that the catholic church does disqualify married men from leadership roles such as a bishop because they are married?

You are not correct.

No doubt the laity do have some leadership roles. What i’m referring to areas where doctrines and practices are made. For example, when there is a church council are there ever any pronouncements or declarations from married men?

When there is a church council, documents are comprised from many sources. Once they are proclaimed, it is done so by the council. Prior to that, (name removed by moderator)ut may come from married persons, and all manner of clergy and laity. You are in error that any pronouncements or declarations are made from any person at all, single, celibate, or married.

 

[guanophore]

The catholic church has circumvented the qualifications for leadership by denying married men. Even though Jesus and Paul were single, they never used that as a criteria for leadership.

Since the Catholic Church wrote the NT, and it emerged out of the practices of the Church, I think it is safe to say that the Church did not “circumvent” any of it. In fact, there are no teachings or practices of the Church that are not entirely consistent with scripture. If it seems to you that they are not consistent, then you don’t understand one or the other.

The church has many roles for leaders. The priesthood is only one of the many offices of the church, and some priests are not even particularly good leaders. They may be faithful to their priestly calling, but not necessarily good at leading the community.

We know the eurachrist is not mention in John 6 nor is any kind of consecration either. Jesus is teaching something else here.

Yes, and no. He was teaching us what the consecration meant. But yes, the consecration itself came later.

Think about what you are claiming here. Jesus not only appeared as a man (Phil 2) but now appears as bread and wine in thousands of places throughout the world. He now has a human nature and a bread and wine nature.

You misunderstand again. Once the bread and wine are consecrated, they are no longer bread and wine. They are Jesus. He has a Eucharistic Presence.

Because there is no evidence for it and it leads to absurd conclusions as i’ve shown above.

Jesus did warn us that, to the unbelieving, His teachings would seem like absurdities.

If you believed in the scriptures as i do, you would not be catholic for the mere fact that there is much in them is not in scripture.

Thank goodness for the mercies if God, and the Magesterium!

It may be able to change it and there are some married priests. I don’t deny that. What i’m saying is that if there is a married catholic man who has children, bringing them up in the catholic faith etc, has the characteristics of a leader is disqualified from being a priest for the mere fact he is married. Would you not agree with this?

No.

 

[guanophore]

I’m aware in the past that it was alright for priests to marry. However, what about today? Is it not true that in the Roman Catholic church you cannot enter into the priesthood if you are married? Is this not the rule?

Yes, it is a rule of the Latin Rite. The Church considers the priesthood a full time vocation, just as she considers fathering children a full time vocation. She wants to support the vocation to which God has called a person in fullness.

 

[guanophore]

He doesn’t say that, but he is recommending remaining single. Could Paul have gone on his missionaryjourneys if he had to drag a wife and kids along with? maybe, but itwould ahve been that much harder.

As has been explained, celibacy is a discipline that developed in the Roman rite of Catholocism. It became a requirement in the Roman rite because it generally made a priest’s work easier to accomplish if he didn’t have a family to worry about, say, if he was ministering to lepers. (example)

There are several rites in the Catholic Church, for example, the Byzantine rite. However, the Roman rite is the largest. Some of the other rites allow married priests and bishops.

Let’s be honest, it was also about property and wealth. The bishop is the steward of the Church property for the whole diocese. The Church did not want to be burdened with supporting the legitimate,a nd sometimes illegitimate children of the priests and bishops. They also did not want the caretakers of the material belongings of the church to have their fingers in the pot.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Let’s be honest, it was also about property and wealth. The bishop is the steward of the Church property for the whole diocese. The Church did not want to be burdened with supporting the legitimate,a nd sometimes illegitimate children of the priests and bishops. They also did not want the caretakers of the material belongings of the church to have their fingers in the pot.

Yes, I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread.

 

[Teflon93]

Huh? Then what does Roman Catholic mean? What churches does it encompass?

There is only one Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is a misleading term; it confounds separated communities as well as different rites within full communion. It is also used by Protestants and Orthodox as a mild perjorative. The Catholic Church is global, is not subject to secular rule (the head of the Catholic Church is the Supreme Pontiff; not the Queen of England, nor the Prime Minister of Italy, or some such thing), and The Vatican is recognized as a country in its own right in diplomatic circles. There are one billion Catholics (about half of Christendom today). In much of the world, the notion of “Roman Catholic” would be met by quizzical stares.