Xavier's contention that Priestly celibacy is unBiblical

[Mickey]

Xavier:

You can do it , I know you can

Hey Xavier,

We all can do without the sarcastic condescension!

 

[Church_Militant]

My contention with you is that this practice is indeed Biblical…and these verses clearly support that. We are not discussing whether it is a commandment, discipline, or rule of the mickey mouse club, so admission one way or the other is both unnecessary and off topic.

y’know…I could say the same to you Xave. You could (and should) admit honestly that there is a scriptural basis for this discipline of our faith. Whether you personally agree or not is wholly irrelevent, as is my own personal opinion. The fact that St.Paul espoused it in his own life certainly confirms that he felt it was scripturally acceptable I would think. If you or I have other opinions, I suggest that we will have to address them with him upon meeting him in heaven. Meanwhile…I stand by my premiss.

you can be such a pain…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Xavier]

Mickey:

Hey Xavier,

We all can do without the sarcastic condescension!

its easy to take ourselves too seriously here.

 

[Xavier]

Church Militant:

My contention with you is that this practice is indeed Biblical…and these verses clearly support that. We are not discussing whether it is a commandment, discipline, or rule of the mickey mouse club, so admission one way or the other is both unnecessary and off topic.

y’know…I could say the same to you Xave. You could (and should) admit honestly that there is a scriptural basis for this discipline of our faith. Whether you personally agree or not is wholly irrelevent, as is my own personal opinion. The fact that St.Paul espoused it in his own life certainly confirms that he felt it was scripturally acceptable I would think. If you or I have other opinions, I suggest that we will have to address them with him upon meeting him in heaven. Meanwhile…I stand by my premiss.

you can be such a pain…
Pax vobiscum,

Is it biblical that some people are married and others single.
Of course it is.
But i percieved that that was never your contention.

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

Is it biblical that some people are married and others single.
Of course it is.
But i percieved that that was never your contention.

Then perhaps you misperceived my contention…
Still, this is in reference to clergy…not “some people”.
Concede my point?

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Genesis315:

Maybe. the Church defines certain dogmas. They are things like Jesus is divine, Mary is the Mother of God, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus during the Eucharist transubstanciation), etc. Priestly celibacy does not fall into this category. Celibacy was optional back in Biblical times and shortly after, even though many or most chose it anyway. That being said, even today there are married priests, even in the Latin church (Anglican minister converts who become priests). The fact that exceptions can be made shows it is disciplinary.

Celibacy may have been optional back in Biblical times, but that just proves celibacy in the Priesthood was not unBiblical.

 

[reggie]

xavier,

You truly are a master of the sidestep! You say that the discipline is within the perogative of the Church but that it is not Biblical. You have been shown passages in the Bible that suggest otherwise, yet, you persist in your claims. It is not a matter of condescending to admit that the Church has the right to make this a requirement to priesthood, it is whether or not there are in fact Biblical passages that support celibacy in the priesthood. I have said several times to you that the Bible supports both the married and unmarried priesthood but you refuse to acknowledge that this is true.

I can only come to one conclusion based on our ongoing debate:
You have infallibly stated what is to be believed based on your own interpretation of the passages related to this issue. How then do you interpret the passage from 1 Cor 7:32-35?

St. Paul even goes so far as to state that he does not mean to hinder or restrain but puts this forth as being for good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord. Now St. Paul speaks this to all believers and yet by what follows, it is obvious that all will not and cannot remain celibate. The Church sees in this passage an exhortation to those who would devote their life to the Church, that through celibacy, they can do more for the Church than if they were married. St. Paul is quite clear in what he says. How differently would you interpret this passage?

Now you may say that because Paul does not say “If you want to devote your life to Christ and His Church, you must remain celibate”, that this proves the discipline of the Church unbiblical. It does not, Paul recommends the discipline to those who can adhere to it, therefore, when the Church makes that requirement, it is also recommending it to those who can live by it. It is a choice that these men and women make in order to serve God and Church.

Anxiously awaiting your infallible pronouncement upon this passage,

reggie

 

[Genesis315]

Kevin Walker:

Celibacy may have been optional back in Biblical times, but that just proves celibacy in the Priesthood was not unBiblical.

Oh, absoultely right. I was under the impression that the argument was about mandated celibacy. My bad. All clear now.

 

[MaggieOH]

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 am not sure where the notion comes from about the Latin Church not requiring celibacy until the fourth century has come from, since St. Paul himself was celibate.

Also, I am not sure that what you are attempting to say is historically correct for other reasons. The move towards priestly celibacy came about because of a need to reform the Church because of an abuse over the inheritance of property as well as of Church livings. Until the reform was introduced some rather absurd things, such as a child inheriting his uncle’s bishopric in France, occurred.

Another point that you made here is the claim that Catholics see celibacy as being dogma but that is not true. We have always understood it to be a discipline, and disciplines can change according to the circumstances.

The question about celibacy is one that gets blurred because of the increase in the number of men being reported for involvement in sexual assualt minor girls and boys. Quite often people forget that there are charges pending against pastors who have been married and concentrate instead upon Catholic priests because of the vow of celibacy. Since it is an issue that is so blurred, we tend to forget to look at the real reasons behind the discipline, and why so many mean take a vow of celibacy but fail to live up to the vow that they have made with God.

I should point out that the vow of celibacy, according to how one interprets the laws in the Old Testament, is a vow that is made before God, and the person cannot be released from that vow in the eyes of God. In the Old Testament the men often took what is known as the vow of the nazirite. This vow did not last for a lifetime, but it is a precursor to the vow of priestly celibacy.

So yes, the vow of celibacy is a Biblical teaching.

MaggieOH

 

[Xavier]

reggie:

xavier,

You truly are a master of the sidestep! You say that the discipline is within the perogative of the Church but that it is not Biblical. You have been shown passages in the Bible that suggest otherwise, yet, you persist in your claims. It is not a matter of condescending to admit that the Church has the right to make this a requirement to priesthood, it is whether or not there are in fact Biblical passages that support celibacy in the priesthood. I have said several times to you that the Bible supports both the married and unmarried priesthood but you refuse to acknowledge that this is true.

I can only come to one conclusion based on our ongoing debate:
You have infallibly stated what is to be believed based on your own interpretation of the passages related to this issue. How then do you interpret the passage from 1 Cor 7:32-35?

St. Paul even goes so far as to state that he does not mean to hinder or restrain but puts this forth as being for good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord. Now St. Paul speaks this to all believers and yet by what follows, it is obvious that all will not and cannot remain celibate. The Church sees in this passage an exhortation to those who would devote their life to the Church, that through celibacy, they can do more for the Church than if they were married. St. Paul is quite clear in what he says. How differently would you interpret this passage?

Now you may say that because Paul does not say “If you want to devote your life to Christ and His Church, you must remain celibate”, that this proves the discipline of the Church unbiblical. It does not, Paul recommends the discipline to those who can adhere to it, therefore, when the Church makes that requirement, it is also recommending it to those who can live by it. It is a choice that these men and women make in order to serve God and Church.

Anxiously awaiting your infallible pronouncement upon this passage,

reggie

I have spoken plainly on this subject.
I have repeated, again and again what I assert.
There were married and unmarrieds in the priesthood, that is what is biblical.
That however is not the RCC position. Yes there are maried priests, but few in number. They are permitted if they were married prior to converting to catholism.
The RCC postion of a mandated priesthood is unbiblical. How much more plain do I need to be. Peter would be disqualified in the present day RCC.
The error is not mine.

 

[Malachi4U]

Xavier:

…The error is not mine.

Perhaps you should reconsider this point?

 

[Church_Militant]

Xavier:

I have spoken plainly on this subject.
I have repeated, again and again what I assert.
There were married and unmarrieds in the priesthood, that is what is biblical.
That however is not the RCC position. Yes there are maried priests, but few in number. They are permitted if they were married prior to converting to Catholicism.
The RCC postion of a mandated priesthood is unbiblical. How much more plain do I need to be. Peter would be disqualified in the present day RCC.
The error is not mine.

SSDD… same old refusal to acknowlege a scriptural precedent that your personally prejudiced interpretation and bias disagrees with. Also, your own statement disproves your case since Peter was married prior to his bishopric, therefore the error is indeed yours.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[mercygate]

Xavier:

I have spoken plainly on this subject.
I have repeated, again and again what I assert.
There were married and unmarrieds in the priesthood, that is what is biblical.
That however is not the RCC position. Yes there are maried priests, but few in number. They are permitted if they were married prior to converting to catholism.
The RCC postion of a mandated priesthood is unbiblical. How much more plain do I need to be. Peter would be disqualified in the present day RCC.
The error is not mine.

Paraphrasing a great line in Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity:

Protestant denominations serve a purpose, because there are so many millions who will not accept anything from the Catholic Church, even Jesus Christ himself.

My guess is that if the Catholic Church declared that Washington D.C. is the capitol of the United States, Xavier would say that the Church had the facts wrong!

 

[Church_Militant]

mercygate:

Paraphrasing a great line in Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity:

Protestant denominations serve a purpose, because there are so many millions who will not accept anything from the Catholic Church, even Jesus Christ himself.

My guess is that if the Catholic Church declared that Washington D.C. is the capitol of the United States, Xavier would say that the Church had the facts wrong!

Yep!
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[reggie]

xavier,

I am beginning to see your position more clearly; it is still an incorrect one. Your reliance on St. Peter to prove your point is truly absurd in that Peter was married before he was called by Christ. This happens even in our times. Men are called by Christ from outside the Church, and if their calling is perceived to be true, the Church then allows these men to become priests even if married. That may not have always been the case, but the disciplines of the Church are not dogma and can be changed as the Church sees the need.

The crux of your position seems to be that since Jesus called a married man, St. Peter, to follow him, the Church is in error requiring celibacy for priests. Once again, since you seem to be unable to grasp the concept, there are Scriptures that explicitly put forth that celibacy is a good state and one that not only frees one to serve the Lord with more zeal, but with more focus as well.

The Church’s mandate does not violate Scripture, nor is it negated by the fact that St. Peter was married. Your assertions are weak at best. They exhibit a stubborn resistance to solid support for a discipline with which you disagree; one that I believe belies your stubborn resistance to all things Catholic, first and foremost being her authority.

Generally, this is the reason so many leave the Church. Some want to believe what they believe and when those beliefs are in disagreement with the Church, rather than admitting that one’s personal belief may be wrong, or submitting to the authority of the Church, they leave and set about “proving” that they are right, and the church is wrong. Or, they find a church/pastor that panders to them.

So, xavier, I don’t expect any real response from you. I expect what you have given myself and everyone else in this thread over and over again. Your pronouncement that the Church is wrong, you are right, and the truly laughable…that St. Peter would be rejected by the Church today. Just as doctrine has been developed and formalized over the centuries, so too the disciplines. I say it again, there is evidence in Scripture to support both positions, the Church has simply seen the need and benefit of an unmarried priesthood and adopted the practice.

You will have to find another angle to undermine the authority and trueness of the Church founded by Christ. This one is lame.

 

[FCEGM]

It seems to me that the heart of what celibacy represents (sexual continence) has not been touched upon in the discussion here. The discipline of celibacy stems for the most part from the nature of the priesthood itself, namely that a priest offers sacrifice (THE Sacrifice of the Mass). As we see already practiced in Old Testament times, the priests who rotated terms of service in the Temple were required to practice sexual fasting during the time of their service. (We see this at the beginning of St. Luke’s gospel when he presents us with the account of Zachary and Elizabeth and the conception of John.) So it is quite biblical to practice sexual continence, the celibate priesthood living that in witness to the celibacy of Christ Himself Who is both Priest and Victim.

While celibate priests are to practice life-long sexual fasting, it has also been the age-old discipline of married priests to observe life-long continence, or at least sexual fasting before offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Healer101]

Hello

I would like to recomend a book on this subject that I think at one time was recommended and or at least reviewed in “This Rock” magazine. The book is called “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celebracy” by Christian Cochini

 

[Church_Militant]

:irish1:

 

[Benadam]

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.

when Christ taught that anyone not willing to give up, in a nutshell, all other human relationships wasn’t worthy of Him, the apostles replied that they had done this. I presume that meant they gave up their married lives and that they lived a celibate life after deciding to follow Jesus.

 

[Benadam]

Luke 18-27 He said to them: The things that are impossible with men, are possible with God. 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.

Peter states ‘they’ left all things. Christ’s list of human relationships is probably addressing the primary and most difficult of the things ‘they’ left behind which are the bonds of family and friends. I presume that the apostles left their bonds of marriage to allow Christ to transform them into Himself. I would think this meant a celibate life for them.