Any male can ask. If he passes all of the conditions, then fine. I am waiting for you to ask for the reasons for exemptions.Are you saying that if there is a married catholic man in your parish he could ask to become a priest and he could?
It would show that this is in direct opposition of the criteria for church leadership that married men with children were qualified to be leaders that Paul spells out in I Timothy 3 for example. The catholic church however disqualifies men just because they are married.Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying that if there is a married catholic man in your parish he could ask to become a priest and he could?
davidv
And if he could not, what then?
See my post 459Any male can ask. If he passes all of the conditions, then fine. I am waiting for you to ask for the reasons for exemptions.
As Dave said, what if he is told no? Marrage and the Preisthood are sacraments of vocation. It concerns your state in life.
It has already been demonstrated that the Church does admit married men to priesthood. Why do you think the Church has adopted clerical celibacy as the norm? Give it some serious thought. Think about scriptural applications that might favor the notion.It would show that this is in direct opposition of the criteria for church leadership that married men with children were qualified to be leaders that Paul spells out in I Timothy 3 for example. The catholic church however disqualifies men just because they are married.
We have a married priest in my diocese:It would show that this is in direct opposition of the criteria for church leadership that married men with children were qualified to be leaders that Paul spells out in I Timothy 3 for example. The catholic church however disqualifies men just because they are married.
Does it not admit them under exceptional cases and is not the norm?mercygate;3264690]
Originally Posted by justasking4
It would show that this is in direct opposition of the criteria for church leadership that married men with children were qualified to be leaders that Paul spells out in I Timothy 3 for example. The catholic church however disqualifies men just because they are married.
mercygate
It has already been demonstrated that the Church does admit married men to priesthood.
i have given this much thought. What i’m against is your church that goes against the clear teaching of Scripture in regards to the qualifications for leadership. I’m aware of the argument that is used that Jesus was single. The problem is that He never advocates leadership based on celibacy. In fact He chose Peter who was married to be a leader.Why do you think the Church has adopted clerical celibacy as the norm? Give it some serious thought. Think about scriptural applications that might favor the notion.
That may be but he is not the norm. Notice that he was not a catholic before he became a priest.We have a married priest in my diocese:
pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/PE_News_Local_B_elder24.408c371.html
Generally speaking the man disqualifies himself by choosing the marriage vocation instead of the priestly one. In her wisdom, the Church has declared, particular in the Latin rite, that these two vocations are best lived out uniquely.It would show that this is in direct opposition of the criteria for church leadership that married men with children were qualified to be leaders that Paul spells out in I Timothy 3 for example. The catholic church however disqualifies men just because they are married.
Why do you discount the quote about those that remain unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Matt 19:12 What about Paul in 1 Cor 7:25-40? Being single frees you to do God’s work.Does it not admit them under exceptional cases and is not the norm?
i have given this much thought. What i’m against is your church that goes against the clear teaching of Scripture in regards to the qualifications for leadership. I’m aware of the argument that is used that Jesus was single. The problem is that He never advocates leadership based on celibacy. In fact He chose Peter who was married to be a leader.
Ah, but you said:That may be but he is not the norm. Notice that he was not a catholic before he became a priest.
And, as you can see, the church does not necessarily disqualify men just because they are married.The catholic church however disqualifies men just because they are married.
Apparently not.i have given this much thought.
Well, if you’re aware of it, you should also realize that this (having to be married) is not a requirement for leadership, as you may be saying, and as Old Scholar is certainly saying. Unless you believe that Jesus Himself was “unqualified” to be a leader. Paul, too, even though he was chosen by Christ to be a leader.What i’m against is your church that goes against the clear teaching of Scripture in regards to the qualifications for leadership. I’m aware of the argument that is used that Jesus was single.
And He chose Paul, who was UNmarried, to be a leader. So why would you be advocating that being married was a requirement?The problem is that He never advocates leadership based on celibacy. In fact He chose Peter who was married to be a leader.
whom does St Peter lead?Does it not admit them under exceptional cases and is not the norm?
i have given this much thought. What i’m against is your church that goes against the clear teaching of Scripture in regards to the qualifications for leadership. I’m aware of the argument that is used that Jesus was single. The problem is that He never advocates leadership based on celibacy. In fact He chose Peter who was married to be a leader.
**I certainly don’t hate Catholics. They have been taught what they believe all their life…“train a child while he grows up…”Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best
**“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.” **
All you have posted so far is the same ole canned anti-Catholic dribble. Pulled from anti-Catholic sources.
Please take the time to read what Catholic’s really believe. (from Catholic sources) And what the Catholic Church teaches. Then if you disagree with that…then ask questions. Don’t come here and try to tell us what we believe or try to rewrite history to fit you anti-Catholic mindset. Then try to sell it to us a truth…WE KNOW BETTER.
**Notice that here Paul is not speaking of bishops. He is speaking of common people and in 1 Cor he is speaking of women.Why do you discount the quote about those that remain unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Matt 19:12 What about Paul in 1 Cor 7:25-40? Being single frees you to do God’s work.
Ah, the Bishop should be the husband of ONLY one wife. Not must be married, but cannot have been married more than once. Further, he says that the bishops CHILDREN. Does that mean one with no offspring or only one child, is he disqualified?**Notice that here Paul is not speaking of bishops. He is speaking of common people and in 1 Cor he is speaking of women.
His instructions for a bishop are really quote clear. Why would the church change them?**
This is perfect poppycock and completely disingenuous.I certainly don’t hate Catholics. They have been taught what they believe all their life…"train a child while he grows up…"
It is infortunate however, that the Catholic Church is not the church it was when it started. All I have been doing is quoting Scripture and quoting the early church fathers. It is the change through the years that I don’t like. After all I am a member of the Catholic Church but not the Roman Catholic Church.
here as well.This is perfect poppycock and completely disingenuous.
A good many of the people who participate in these forums were trained as children in *sola Scriptura *trarditions “all their life.” Some, such as myself, trained for the ministry in Protestant seminaries. Those of us who read the Fathers and Scripture and came up with a different view of things than you do – what are we? Chopped liver? We’re “scholars” too.
Look the context for these passages. These passages don’t deal with leadership directly. A person can be unmarried and serve. I don’t disagree with that. My issue is that the catholic church has disqualified married catholic men from leadership i.e. priests, bishops or popes. They are disqualified because they are married.Why do you discount the quote about those that remain unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Matt 19:12 What about Paul in 1 Cor 7:25-40? Being single frees you to do God’s work.
He was one of the leaders of the NT church.whom does St Peter lead?
Right, so wouldn’t it make sense that the people responsible for teaching be solely devoted to God?Look the context for these passages. These passages don’t deal with leadership directly. A person can be unmarried and serve. I don’t disagree with that. My issue is that the catholic church has disqualified married catholic men from leadership i.e. priests, bishops or popes. They are disqualified because they are married.
I’d prefer a leader who lies his burdens down at Christ’s feet, not his wife’s.Secondly being married to a wife while serving is a great help. Having someone who you can share the burdens of ministry and having a wife that can encourage her husband is something that a single person may lack. Have you ever talked to a protestant minister who is married about this?