Xavier's contention that Priestly celibacy is unBiblical

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by reggie

Xavier, since you just won’t give it up, I will respond once again to the very lame point that Peter was married when Jesus called him.
You seem to think that this one point is enough to say that priestly celibacy is unbiblical.

ONCE AGAIN, yes Peter was married. The CC accepts into the priesthood men who are married. But they have to have been married beforethey become a priest.

*Note that Peter was married before Jesus called him and not after.

*Note also, that there is no mention of any of the Apostles marrying after they are called.

It was the practice of the church in the early times to allow both married and unmarried priests. If a priest took the vow of celibacy, he was expected to remain chaste. If a priest was married, he must have been married only once and if his wife died, he could not remarry. I notice that you make no mention of what may have happened to Peter’s wife. The Bible doesn’t mention it either. But, there is one passage where the disciples say they have left all behind. Did Peter perhaps leave his wife behind?

The point is that different Scriptures can be used to support both sides of this issue. But, after years and years, the Church came to see that it is better if her priests remain unmarried. Candidates for the priesthood understand and accept this when they begin their journey to ordination. It is such a peripheral issue, why does it bother you so much?

I notice too that you refer to yourself as an ex-Catholic. It appears from your posts, you are one of the ones who leaves and then bashes. So I guess in a way, you have answered the original question.

Xavier’s contention:

What I have tried to express is that Peter being married is “trump card” in this arguement. Anything a Catholic would say after this fact is brought up is lame at best, other than its within the RCC prerogative to establish the eligiblity of their priests.
Jesus, was not married. John the Baptist was not married some of the Old Testament prophets were unmarried, some were. The Old Testament priesthood was established with Aaron a married priest. All this says to me is that there can be married and unmarried men in the priesthood.
Let me clarify when I say priesthood I am refering to the office in all of Christiandom not specifically to the RCC.
My whole argument has been that it is not correct to state that the argument that priests remain celibate is biblical. I will not conceed this point.

This is moved here from another thread where it is off topic, but is a good enough question that it deserves it’s own thread. Please feel free to let the discussion fly here!
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by gladtobe

Not allowing priests to marry, is unbiblical and unhistorical

.

How do you figure unBiblical?
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

…And just what’s unhistorical about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe. You don’t know what you’re talking about…

Seems to me that your interp is unBiblical sir…(And out of context)
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This issue is a matter of discipline. The Latin Church did not require celibacy for the secular priesthood until the fourth century.

The eastern Churches have always allowed a married man to be ordained to the secular priesthood.

This is not a matter of dogma. I think this is an error that many supporters of priestly celibacy fall into.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

ByzCath:

This is not a matter of dogma. I think this is an error that many supporters of priestly celibacy fall into.

Your experience is different than mine. I’ve yet to see a supporter make this error.

Scott

 

[Church_Militant]

Now to your so called evidence:

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn…

1st Corinthians 9:5 “5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Paul certainly had the right…but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were marraied… this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scripitural reasons for celibate clergy reagardless of the change that teh deformers brought about in the 1500’s because some of them couldn’t hack it… This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers…this still does NOT negate Christ’s own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier…Nor St.Paul’s own statement to that effect that I also cited. you set up these straw mwn and then wanna tell me that this is the answer??? Sorry Xave…If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn’t made these statements, then we’d have nothing to discuss…but your flat refusal to even acknowlege that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just “cherry picking” (as you call it). I’m not doin’ that at all…I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married…we have some married priests today and that is fine…

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

Titus 1:6 “6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly”
Same as above…

1st Timothy 4:1-3 “1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

ByzCath:

This issue is a matter of discipline. The Latin Church did not require celibacy for the secular priesthood until the fourth century.

The eastern Churches have always allowed a married man to be ordained to the secular priesthood.

This is not a matter of dogma. I think this is an error that many supporters of priestly celibacy fall into.

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) “unBiblical” as I hope is apparent from my posts.

 

[Lorarose]

How can it be “unbiblical” when the Savior- our High Priest was, Himself - a celibate?

 

[Xavier]

ByzCath:

This issue is a matter of discipline. The Latin Church did not require celibacy for the secular priesthood until the fourth century.

The eastern Churches have always allowed a married man to be ordained to the secular priesthood.

This is not a matter of dogma. I think this is an error that many supporters of priestly celibacy fall into.

Hits the nail squarely on the head

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Still doesn’t make the discipline of celibate Latin Rite clergy “unbiblical” though, does it? Nothing in the Bible that says, “Thou shalt not be an UNMARRIED priest”, right?

 

[Church_Militant]

Tantum ergo:

Still doesn’t make the discipline of celibate Latin Rite clergy “unbiblical” though, does it? Nothing in the Bible that says, “Thou shalt not be an UNMARRIED priest”, right?

My point exactly Tantum Ergo.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Church Militant:

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) “unBiblical” as I hope is apparent from my posts.

Your right and I guess I didn’t make myself clear.

It is a matter of discipline, both ways.

Neither is dogma.

I am for upholding Tradition.

In the Latin Church that would be for a celibate secular priesthood, in the Byzantine Churches that would be for allowing married men to be ordained to the secular priesthood.

 

[frdave20]

read scott hahn’s book, the lamb’s supper

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) “unBiblical” as I hope is apparent from my posts.

Sometimes I think when Catholics and Protestants dialog they say essentially the same thing however word it slightly different causing a communication problem. Examlpe: Faith, faith alone vs faith and works.
Maybe som of that is going on here.
We both are able to speak each others language so that should not be a problem. So let me try this one more time.
There were both married and unmarried apostles. We know of Peter and Paul insinuates others.
A doctrine which would require all priests to marry is as unbiblical as one which would require that they remain unmarried.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

Titus 1:6 “6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly”
Same as above…

1st Timothy 4:1-3 “1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

Pax vobiscum,

Hi CM. I do have a question? Where did you come up with those groups of heretics that vs 1-3 addresses. I,m quirious! It does say in the last times which is in the future. God Bless

 

[Genesis315]

Xavier:

Sometimes I think when Catholics and Protestants dialog they say essentially the same thing however word it slightly different causing a communication problem. Examlpe: Faith, faith alone vs faith and works.
Maybe som of that is going on here.
We both are able to speak each others language so that should not be a problem. So let me try this one more time.
There were both married and unmarried apostles. We know of Peter and Paul insinuates others.
A doctrine which would require all priests to marry is as unbiblical as one which would require that they remain unmarried.

Priests must be celibate is not Biblical. Celibacy is preferred for priests is Biblical (see CMs previous posts). There wouldn’t be married priests if it were a Biblical requirement. The authority of the Church to create such disciplines is Biblical though (not to the protestant interpretation of course).

 

[Genesis315]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi CM. I do have a question? Where did you come up with those groups of heretics that vs 1-3 addresses. I,m quirious! It does say in the last times which is in the future. God Bless

I believe last times can refer to the entire era after Jesus’ death/resurrection until He comes again. For example,w e are currently living in the “last times” just as the earliest Christians were also. I mean, where would you say “last times” begins? A week before Jesus’ second coming? A year? A decade? A century?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Xavier:

Sometimes I think when Catholics and Protestants dialog they say essentially the same thing however word it slightly different causing a communication problem. Examlpe: Faith, faith alone vs faith and works.
Maybe som of that is going on here.
We both are able to speak each others language so that should not be a problem. So let me try this one more time.
There were both married and unmarried apostles. We know of Peter and Paul insinuates others.
A doctrine which would require all priests to marry is as unbiblical as one which would require that they remain unmarried.

Yes you got it.

There is no such doctrine, it is disciple. The Holy Father could over turn this in the Latin Church tomorrow if he wanted to.

I have had this experience before, here at work. You must know what a person means when they use a word.

For example. I am a UNIX Systems Administrator. It take care of the server and its operating system. I deal with Oracle Database Administrators, they take care of the application that runs on the server.

When they speak of users and processes they are doing so from an application perspective and what they are talking about is different than when I speak of users and processes.

We need to realize that each group has its own definitions for many of the words being used and we need to understand what they mean.

 

[jimmy]

ByzCath:

This issue is a matter of discipline. The Latin Church did not require celibacy for the secular priesthood until the fourth century.

The eastern Churches have always allowed a married man to be ordained to the secular priesthood.

This is not a matter of dogma. I think this is an error that many supporters of priestly celibacy fall into.

I think it is an error that the opposition to the celibacy fall into.

 

[jimmy]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi CM. I do have a question? Where did you come up with those groups of heretics that vs 1-3 addresses. I,m quirious! It does say in the last times which is in the future. God Bless

Celibacy is not a thing of the present. It is an old tradition that goes back over 1500 years. Paul was also living in the end times.