|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/11/2005 1:55:23 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7679
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly being repeated or asked we've decided to create a perpetual discussion on the topic.
Why does the Catholic church require priests and nuns to remain celebate?
Why are priests referred to as father and is it right to do so?
Discuss the doctrine here.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 12:37:50 AM
|
|
|
S.Benedict
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
As sited from www.catholic.com. This is the Catholic Answers website.
Celibacy and the Priesthood
Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject about which so many different confusions exist.
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.
These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
Is Marriage Mandatory?
Another, quite different Fundamentalist confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even "unnatural." Every man, it is claimed, must obey the biblical injunction to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28); and Paul commands that "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). It is even argued that celibacy somehow "causes," or at least correlates with higher incidence of, illicit sexual behavior or perversion.
All of this is false. Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).
It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were "not really called" to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.
"The Husband of One Wife"
Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise "self-control" (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of "managing his household well," even if his "household" is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be "soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits": "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits."
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
Forbidden to Marry?
Yet none of these passages give us an example of humanly mandated celibacy. Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, but it was from the Lord. Paul’s remark to Timothy about "civilian pursuits" is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35).
This brings us to Fundamentalism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who "forbid marriage."
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.
But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).
This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.
Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists (whom, ironically, some anti-Catholic writers admire in ignorance, apparently purely because they happened to have insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible; see the Catholic Answers tract Catholic Inventions).
The Dignity of Celibacy and Marriage
Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.
In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.
Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.
Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
< Message edited by S.Benedict -- 4/12/2005 4:19:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 2:24:24 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Hey Fritz. Good topic...but you forgot monks...they are celbate too...just like the nuns.. Maybe the title could be modified to read monastics instead of nuns. But if you have written what you have written.. I understand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 3:22:10 PM
|
|
|
jgarden
Posts: 62
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Christianity, including the Catholic Church will have to change dramatically in the coming years in face of a "religious consumer" who view churches as "products" to sample and disguard. Celibacy may have had some advantages in the past, but it isn't going to attract your brightest and best that the Church desperately needs. When the current "old guard" leaves, where are the replacements in the wings. With foresight, the Church could slowly make the transition with a minimum of problems, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Tradition and ritual are no substite for making Christ relevant in the 21st C.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 3:39:05 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
The Orthodox Church requires celebacy of her monks and nuns of course, but not of her priests. In fact they are encouraged to marry before ordination. But if they are ordained single they have to remain so. Bishops must be single, but I guess since few have been given the gift of true celebacy, a seminarian is encouraged to marry.
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 4:04:15 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1lightseeker
The Orthodox Church requires celebacy of her monks and nuns of course, but not of her priests. In fact they are encouraged to marry before ordination. But if they are ordained single they have to remain so. Bishops must be single, but I guess since few have been given the gift of true celebacy, a seminarian is encouraged to marry.
To be fair - this is also the practice of the Roman Catholic Faith.
For example - there are married Roman Catholic Priests. These are usually converts from other Faiths that have the theological training required. They are not required to "divorce" (which would be ridiculous) in order to become ordained as Priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
Celibacy is a discipline required for the office - it is not doctrine - noting that some here will probably not be familiar with the difference between these two aspects of Faith.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 4:34:07 PM
|
|
|
S.Benedict
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Just a personal note on this subject. I think it is highly favorable for one to devote his whole life to doing God's deeds on this earth. If a priest were to be married, or a nin, for that matter, he would have to worry about things other than God. He wuld have to worry about his family and getting all teh necessities of life that they need. When one devotes his/her entire life to God in the church, he takes for his bride "The Church", basically. These people who have given their lives to God are wholly taken care of and do not need to worry about anything temporal. they can focus on teh spiritual completely. I have much respect for those who devote their whole being to Christ. Although I do not fell called to do so, some people are called to that state in life and kudos to tehm for being able to recognize and for dedicating themselves to Christ.
_____________________________
I am already saved, but I’m also being saved, and I have the hope that I will be saved. Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 4:35:42 PM
|
|
|
jeezusfreek1
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I'd simply like to say that it is MANDATORY that a Priest not be married according to the RCC, whether it's doctrine or not. And th bible repeatedly say do not forbid man to marry. The RCC does just that by forbiding Priests (men) to marry. That is the arguement! If a man wants to marry, let him marry, and don't penalize him and forbid him to be a Priest. (not that we need priests)
Next arguement?
Jesus is the only one we go to between us and God. This is also in the bible. I can't find the scripture this very minute, I don't have all my papers with me, but everyone knows it's there.
The role of priests is WRONG. If they really are successors of the Apostles, then they should be SERVANTS not overseers. (matthew 20:24-28) So, they can't be successors, because they are overseers and not servants. They don't serve the Lord, they take away from His glory. They walk around in flowing robes and like to be called "father".
I'm not going to go to some old, lying sinner to confess my sins. I have Jesus for that. read Matthew 6:9-15. Jesus says himself that your Heavenly Father will forgive you when you ask, if you've forgiven men who sinned against you. Show me a scripture that says that we don't go to Jesus for forgiveness, but priests. Don't Use James 5:16 taken WAY out of context. James is talking about a fellowship of Christians in which you are accountable for eachother. And if you read James, it is talking about people who are already saved by Grace, people who are already Christians. Not people who need to be saved.
God Bless, Jesus Loves you.
I pray that Everyone will see scripture clearly.
There are many other things I can pick at. Don't take scripture out of context. Read it. It clearly says how the church heads should be, and a priest just doesn't fit the picture.
_____________________________
the promised Holy Spirit is a deposit GUARENTEEING our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession. See Ephesians 1:13-14
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 5:58:46 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jeezusfreek1
I'd simply like to say that it is MANDATORY that a Priest not be married according to the RCC, whether it's doctrine or not. I'm sorry, how long did you say that you have you been practicing the Roman Catholic Faith? 43 years for me - I just wanted to check you level of experience here. And th bible repeatedly say do not forbid man to marry. The RCC does just that by forbiding Priests (men) to marry. That is the arguement! If a man wants to marry, let him marry, and don't penalize him and forbid him to be a Priest. (not that we need priests). Again - clearly mistaken here. This is addressed a couple of post up - but a question to you. If your pastor is assisting a congregant who is in need of Spiritual help and guidance, and his wife is involved in an automobile accident, whom should he ignore? WHat is the Scriptural reference that guides your pastor as to whether he should abandon his flock, or his family?
Next arguement?
Jesus is the only one we go to between us and God. This is also in the bible. I can't find the scripture this very minute, I don't have all my papers with me, but everyone knows it's there. This is what Catholics believe as well. I am glad we are now all on the same page here.
The role of priests is WRONG. If they really are successors of the Apostles, then they should be SERVANTS not overseers. In fact they ARE servants, not distracted by the demands of spouses and children - see my example above. The have given up their lives to serve the Faithful in the capacity of Priests and Nuns. (matthew 20:24-28) So, they can't be successors, because they are overseers and not servants. They don't serve the Lord, they take away from His glory. They walk around in flowing robes and like to be called "father". Please. What does the word 'Apostle" mean? In Scriptural context, are there any "Apostles" left? What is left, if not? If there are, how do you know one is an "Apostle" the way Paul was an Apostle? How do you distinguish the definition of "Apostle" from "Disciple"?
I'm not going to go to some old, lying sinner to confess my sins. I have Jesus for that. read Matthew 6:9-15. Jesus says himself that your Heavenly Father will forgive you when you ask, if you've forgiven men who sinned against you. Show me a scripture that says that we don't go to Jesus for forgiveness, but priests. Don't Use James 5:16 taken WAY out of context. James is talking about a fellowship of Christians in which you are accountable for eachother. And if you read James, it is talking about people who are already saved by Grace, people who are already Christians. Not people who need to be saved. This is an interesting interpretation of Scriptures. If you are already saved, by Grace, and don't need to be saved, why do you have to "confess"? I mean - you're already "saved' aren't you? You're sins are just forgiven automatically, aren't they?
God Bless, Jesus Loves you.
I pray that Everyone will see scripture clearly.
There are many other things I can pick at. Don't take scripture out of context. Read it. It clearly says how the church heads should be, and a priest just doesn't fit the picture. "Presbyteros" is clearly Scriptural.
A whole new world of posters for GoodME to challenge.......... 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 6:32:31 PM
|
|
|
jeezusfreek1
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Is that what you do, GoodMe, "Challenge"?
That's not very nice.
I'm here to learn others' point of view and enlighten others.
Why Challenge?
_____________________________
the promised Holy Spirit is a deposit GUARENTEEING our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession. See Ephesians 1:13-14
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 6:47:16 PM
|
|
|
jeezusfreek1
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
quote:
ORIGINAL: jeezusfreek1
I'd simply like to say that it is MANDATORY that a Priest not be married according to the RCC, whether it's doctrine or not. I'm sorry, how long did you say that you have you been practicing the Roman Catholic Faith? 43 years for me - I just wanted to check you level of experience here.are you denying that the catholic church forbids priests to marry... keep reading? And th bible repeatedly say do not forbid man to marry. The RCC does just that by forbiding Priests (men) to marry. That is the arguement! If a man wants to marry, let him marry, and don't penalize him and forbid him to be a Priest. (not that we need priests). Again - clearly mistaken here. This is addressed a couple of post up - but a question to you. If your pastor is assisting a congregant who is in need of Spiritual help and guidance, and his wife is involved in an automobile accident, whom should he ignore? WHat is the Scriptural reference that guides your pastor as to whether he should abandon his flock, or his family?Do you realize that the pastor can divide his attention between the two, and not have a problem? Do you realize that a congregant can also go straight to Jesus? Do you realize that it would take no more than an hour of a pastors time to give spiritual advice? do you realize that he doesn't have to "abandon" either his "flock, or his family" instead, focus on both? Do you think a man is too unintelligent to deal with more than one thing, and still be devoted to God? Just because you have a life does not mean you are not devoted to God, that is rediculous!!!
Next arguement?
Jesus is the only one we go to between us and God. This is also in the bible. I can't find the scripture this very minute, I don't have all my papers with me, but everyone knows it's there. This is what Catholics believe as well. I am glad we are now all on the same page here.If Catholics believed this, then why do they go to saints, Mary, priests, etc.!
The role of priests is WRONG. If they really are successors of the Apostles, then they should be SERVANTS not overseers. In fact they ARE servants, not distracted by the demands of spouses and children - see my example above. The have given up their lives to serve the Faithful in the capacity of Priests and Nuns. (matthew 20:24-28) So, they can't be successors, because they are overseers and not servants. They don't serve the Lord, they take away from His glory. They walk around in flowing robes and like to be called "father". Please. What does the word 'Apostle" mean? In Scriptural context, are there any "Apostles" left? What is left, if not? If there are, how do you know one is an "Apostle" the way Paul was an Apostle? How do you distinguish the definition of "Apostle" from "Disciple"?You're getting technical beyond need. Pretty sad for a 43 year practicing RC, who you'd think would be mature enough to see the obvious.
I'm not going to go to some old, lying sinner to confess my sins. I have Jesus for that. read Matthew 6:9-15. Jesus says himself that your Heavenly Father will forgive you when you ask, if you've forgiven men who sinned against you. Show me a scripture that says that we don't go to Jesus for forgiveness, but priests. Don't Use James 5:16 taken WAY out of context. James is talking about a fellowship of Christians in which you are accountable for eachother. And if you read James, it is talking about people who are already saved by Grace, people who are already Christians. Not people who need to be saved. This is an interesting interpretation of Scriptures. If you are already saved, by Grace, and don't need to be saved, why do you have to "confess"? I mean - you're already "saved' aren't you? You're sins are just forgiven automatically, aren't they?[/color]!!!EXACTLY!!! why go to a sinful priest!!! The reason you should share it with your fellowship is to try to live like a Christian the best you can, not to be "saved"!!! After you are saved by grace, then comes the righteousness. how is my interpretation "interesting" i share it with many.
God Bless, Jesus Loves you.
I pray that Everyone will see scripture clearly.
There are many other things I can pick at. Don't take scripture out of context. Read it. It clearly says how the church heads should be, and a priest just doesn't fit the picture. "Presbyteros" is clearly Scriptural.
A whole new world of posters for GoodME to challenge..........
_____________________________
the promised Holy Spirit is a deposit GUARENTEEING our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession. See Ephesians 1:13-14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 7:54:17 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Hello,
I have great respect for monastics and priests who give up the comforts of family to follow Christ. But a family can be an asset to a priest. There are women who feel called to be priests' wives who help "mother" the flock. Our priest's son is the choir director and his wife is my chrismation (confirmation) sponsor. It can work both ways.
Here in America you don't hear of married Catholic priests. Is it looked down on?
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 7:55:30 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
The above was supposed to be a reply to #6 from Goodme. Don't know what happened to the little box thing.
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 4/12/2005 10:12:40 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1lightseeker
Hello,
I have great respect for monastics and priests who give up the comforts of family to follow Christ. But a family can be an asset to a priest. There are women who feel called to be priests' wives who help "mother" the flock. Our priest's son is the choir director and his wife is my chrismation (confirmation) sponsor. It can work both ways.
Here in America you don't hear of married Catholic priests. Is it looked down on?
There are some married priests. Mainly they are composed of former Protestant pastors who converted. Although, Easter Rite Catholic priests are often married. It's mainly the Latin Rite priests who are celibate. They're the most well known in the USA.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/17/2005 6:59:00 PM
|
|
|
HeadHome
Posts: 52
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Being Protestant, I thought S. Benedict's OP was terrific. Celibacy is difficult, and those who serve the Lord in that state "have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (Gal. 5:24) Those who fail to live up to that standard do not end it. They have simply failed to meet the Biblical standard, just as a Protestant pastor who commits adultery has failed to meet the Biblical standard without destroying the institution of marriage. That seems obvious, yet I'm sure that in order to clarify one's stand in this area (or any other), one must make every effort to avoid being misinterpreted.
As for priests and nuns, I don't know enough to speak to that; except to say that I have tremendous respect for anyone willing to take vows of celibacy and poverty to make a life of serving others in Jesus' name.
I'm not converting to Catholicism, but I pray that Christians can at least respect people of other denominations/faith traditions.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/17/2005 8:03:24 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
One thing about Protestantism that I have never understood. Celibacy is valued very highly in the Gospels and Paul. Why does Protestantism disdain it so?
On the Feast of St. Pascal Boylon
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/17/2005 9:03:55 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm not going to go to some old, lying sinner to confess my sins. I have Jesus for that. read Matthew 6:9-15. Jesus says himself that your Heavenly Father will forgive you when you ask, if you've forgiven men who sinned against you. Show me a scripture that says that we don't go to Jesus for forgiveness, but priests. Don't Use James 5:16 taken WAY out of context. James is talking about a fellowship of Christians in which you are accountable for eachother. And if you read James, it is talking about people who are already saved by Grace, people who are already Christians. Not people who need to be saved.
Dear JF1,
John 20:22b-23," Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, are retained."
I don't understand. You would allow some lying old sinner to stand in a pulpit and speak God's holy words out of his lying, sinful mouth.
You would allow some lying old sinner to raise your children out of the waters of Baptism with his lying, sinful hands. You would allow some lying old sinner to pronounce God's words of blessing upon your marriage, and call upon a bunch of lying, old sinners to witness. Yet you object to some lying old sinner to pronounce God's words of forgivness for your sins? Face it. all God has to work with on earth is a bunch of lying, old sinners, yet, He does great things.
On the Feast of St. Pascal Boylon
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/18/2005 12:43:09 AM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1780
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
One thing about Protestantism that I have never understood. Celibacy is valued very highly in the Gospels and Paul. Why does Protestantism disdain it so?
1. Because the whole system of sacerdotalism is from outside NT Christianity. The Bible teaches the priesthood of believers, period.
2. Because "priests" are indeed forbidden to marry by the RCC, and this is called a "doctrine of demons"
3. Because marriage is what God ordained for the majority of men and women, and marriage symbolizes God's eternal intimate relationship to His people. The Song of Solomon is there for a very specific purpose.
4. Because marriage and a family are necessities to prove the capability of an elder/pastor/bishop to rule in the local church.
5. Because Christ said that the single state was only given to some.
7. Because monasticism is foreign to the Gospel and church life in the NT.
BTW, it is only your perception that "celibacy is highly valued" in the Gospels and epistles. As a matter of fact, Paul said he too had every right to "lead about" a wife, as did the other apostles, but he chose to remain single, given the fact that he was called to suffer greatly for Christ.
According to Catholic theory, the apostles should have all been celibate in order to serve God more effectively, but God's ways are not our ways, neither His thoughts ours.
While Paul does encourage singleness for those called to be single, he insists on marriage for those not thus called, particularly young widows. And he insists that an elder (not a priest) be one who rules his own house well and thereby has the capability of leading the church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/26/2005 6:32:00 PM
|
|
|
HeadHome
Posts: 52
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear sdaw,
My reply to your post #16 is to say that celibacy is disdained throughout the USA in our day and age. (If you doubt that, spend some time in any American non-rural high school.) Since "you reap what you sow," teenagers who are raised in non-Christian homes and attend public high schools are likely to grow up into shallow Christians, whose lifestyles are often willfully disobedient to Jesus - that is, if they don't remain atheists. Our society plants a sinful foundation of sexual misconduct into many of its youth.
There is also the point that, as a nondenominational pastor put it, "I think the hard truth is that you marry your ministry. For centuries the Catholic Church has maintained that a priest or pastor is married to God and his life must reflect that priority. It's not a politically correct perspective, but there's probably more truth to it than we give it credit for." (George Barna, The Second Coming of the Church. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998, p. 39.) Face it, not many will accept THAT call. Jesus said it Himself when He spoke of eunuchs, saying, "He who can accept this teaching, let him accept it."
Is it any wonder that Protestants, and many other Americans, disdain celibacy? I don't think so.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/26/2005 6:49:27 PM
|
|
|
ixthys4u
Posts: 1
Joined: 5/16/2005
From: West-Central Ohio
Status: offline
|
Departing a bit from the thread's topic...and "as an aside"....
As an ex-fundamentalist -- and now conservative Protestant -- Christian, I have an observation.
It is, for all intents and purposes, "required" in fundamentalist churches that the pastor be married. In fact, students in most (fundamentalist) Bible colleges are put under a fair amount of pressure to get married. In some circles it is demanded!
What I'm saying is that the gift of celibacy is essentially un-accepted in these churches. The oddest thing about this is; this is "un-biblical!" (keeping in mind how these churches claim to base their beliefs on the Bible)....
Just some thoughts,
rick
\o/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/26/2005 6:59:36 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jeezusfreek1
Is that what you do, GoodMe, "Challenge"?
That's not very nice.
I'm here to learn others' point of view and enlighten others.
Why Challenge?
Haven't been back here in a while - so I missed these.
You get "challenged" if you post what I think is unScriptural nonsense.
If you are are here to enlighten me - then you will be able to answer all my questions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Priests, Nuns & Celibacy - 5/27/2005 7:38:51 PM
|
|
|
kh31
Posts: 22
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
One thing about Protestantism that I have never understood. Celibacy is valued very highly in the Gospels and Paul. Why does Protestantism disdain it so?
1. Because the whole system of sacerdotalism is from outside NT Christianity. The Bible teaches the priesthood of believers, period.
2. Because "priests" are indeed forbidden to marry by the RCC, and this is called a "doctrine of demons"
3. Because marriage is what God ordained for the majority of men and women, and marriage symbolizes God's eternal intimate relationship to His people. The Song of Solomon is there for a very specific purpose.
4. Because marriage and a family are necessities to prove the capability of an elder/pastor/bishop to rule in the local church.
5. Because Christ said that the single state was only given to some.
7. Because monasticism is foreign to the Gospel and church life in the NT.
BTW, it is only your perception that "celibacy is highly valued" in the Gospels and epistles. As a matter of fact, Paul said he too had every right to "lead about" a wife, as did the other apostles, but he chose to remain single, given the fact that he was called to suffer greatly for Christ.
According to Catholic theory, the apostles should have all been celibate in order to serve God more effectively, but God's ways are not our ways, neither His thoughts ours.
While Paul does encourage singleness for those called to be single, he insists on marriage for those not thus called, particularly young widows. And he insists that an elder (not a priest) be one who rules his own house well and thereby has the capability of leading the church.
Because Jesus was fully man and fully God, would i | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
