Posted on 03/10/2017 12:02:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“Christ was not married, neither was the Apostle John.”
Yet your imaginary first pope Peter was married... hey class can we say Hypocrisy.
That is misleading
According to Rome, and unlike in Scripture, RC deacons headed for the priesthood observe "perfect and perpetual continence," but there is a distinction between those who are seminarians studying to become priests, called transitional deacons, versus permanent deacons who do not intend to eventually be ordained to the RC priesthood (which is not seen in the NT church of Scripture). These deacons can be married and usually live in the world like the laity. The permanent diaconate fell into disuse but was restored in 1967 by Pope Paul VI. .
In contrast, since a transitional deacon is headed toward priestly ordination then he is bound to celibacy and will never be able to marry (unless the pope decides to go by Scripture here). Also, while unmarried men may be ordained to the diaconate at age 25, a married man cannot become a permanent deacon until the age of 35. More: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/09/26/what-can-and-cant-a-deacon-do/
IOW, the Priest must sacrifice everything for Christ and be prepared to go where the Church needs him at a moment’s notice. He must not store up treasures on earth or be concerned with his children’s inheritance.
All believers are called to forsake all, at least in heart, (Lk 14:33) while literally requiring pastors to forsake marriage is simply contrary to what Scripture teaches. In which both pastors and apostles were normally married, and celibacy is a gift. (1Co. 7;7; 9:5; 1Tim. 3:1-7)
As far as I can tell;
The word "hypocrisy" is not fitting word, for this context.
The statement the above [italicized] was directed towards;
And that came about in reply to yet another individual here being quoted;
when in more entirety that person had said;
Yeshua (Jesus Christ) -- not married. He did not come to earth to raise a family in the natural, common flesh and blood way, I think we may all agree?
The apostle John -- not married. check -- since that's never been established to be any different.
Peter, and perhaps other of the original apostles --- married.
Deacons and bishops among the earliest centuries Christian Church --- historical records indicates there were both married and some number not married.
1 Timothy 3:2-12 speaks of bishops and deacons being husband of only one wife, deacons stipulated "ruling their children and their own houses well."
The way that chapter comes across to me does not stipulate that a bishop must be married.
It's more like if a bishop were to be married, he must be married to only one wife. No concubines. No extended network of "girlfriends". No harems with little slave girls wiggling their flat little slightly rounded bellies at a guy...none of that sort of thing at all. Not even close.
The Scripture itself, and going by what historical record of early centuries Christians apparently understood the Scriptures to apply precludes both;
forced celibacy (no marriage, therefor no lawful & legitimate sex) and requirement for marriage (lawful marriage, which can and most often does naturally include sexual relations between man and wife) as being requirement for church administration to adhere and be bound to.
Can we all agree on that summation? Anyone care to try to word it better? I'm sure that could be done, since admittedly I can be awkward and clumsy in my own writing...
Where to next?
You mean OVER like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, "over"? [bwaahahaahh]
Each and every ekkelsia in the first centuries of the Christian Church had "priests" who were fully married, siring children, etc.
There have been bishops of the Latin Church --Popes-- who were married.
What was that heterosupremacist said about "ignorant Catholic bashers"?
Paging aisle 28 attendant;
Ping the rest you pinged previously, when it's all swept up. And= no, no overtime pay for salary guys. I thought we had that conversation?
What kind of question is that? We should be expecting a registry list?
There have been more than just a few who have expressed interest, and a lesser scant few (that I've heard mention of) who when attempting to press the point, generally disqualified themselves for [figuratively] having attempted "beating down the seminary doors", instead of going through proper channels -- so to speak.
Which "proper channels" would be to convince those in positions of uppermost administration (not seminary level administration) to change what is sometimes called the discipline (of celibacy requirement).
If future tense, as seems it must, are you saying RC congregants are cheap, or just reliably tightwads?
It couldn't hardly have been about past tenses.
How could such a thing have occurred, what family could it be? Unless it was money to pay for something like his mother's hospital bill?
Maybe like in the country-western song where that day (in the rain) when momma, got out of prison, but before he could get to the station in the pickup truck, she got runned over by a danged old train?
Ok, trainwrecks involving momma are not that common. Probably that much less for RC priests. How about bail money then, to get momma out of jail? What? There's no good 'ol Southern boys who become RC priests? What kind of Church you guys running?
You think that stuff I went into was silly? What about your set of queries? Where in 'tarnation did those come from? You expected straight answers for skewed sideways loaded crooked questions? Those were enough to drive man to drink.
Hellooo. Me again. That old friend you've scarcely met.
If marriage among the priesthood would turn the place into a Protestant Church then the Church on the whole was originally Protestant.
It did surely did originate under protest against the established "religious order" of the time, day, and place of it's initiation/birth -- but mandated celibacy was not a norm for either the formerly established order, or of the usurper (the latter being we Christians, and our poor little starving church mice).
And replies which refute ignorant Catholics.
What Scripture itself testifies to, contrary to the historical record of Catholicism, is that rather than clerical celibacy being required or being the norm, the reality is that both apostles and presbuteros/episkopos (which were never distinctively called hiereus) were normally married. (1Co. 9:5; 1Tim. 3:1-7)
And rather than celibacy in marriage being enjoined (as was by the Regional Council of Carthage in 418 or 419), it is described as a sanctified sexual union, seeing that God puts them together, (Mt. 19:4-6) and prolonged abstinence is warned against, (1Co. 7:2-5) and which is unknown in Scripture except in one case of an aged infirm man. (1Kg. 1)
And that celibacy is a gift, which is advocated as advantageous for personal focus upon spiritual things, especially in the light of expected judgment, and that every man is generally exhorted to "abide in the same calling wherein he was called," (1Co. 7:7,8,20-35, while raising orderly children is a testimony to a mans fitness for the pastorate. Which requires more than personal focus upon spiritual things in solitude and preaching, but often interacting with the sheep. (1Tim. 3:4,5) And in which a wife can be a help, and has been for many a leader.
1 Co. 7 must be understood in context, in which Paul, as one of the only two single apostles, and ideally wished all could be (celibate) as himself, yet ideally it would also be good if we never had to eat, sleep, work secular jobs, etc. But as pilgrims in this world we must make choices based on what is practically best to achieve the Lord's purposes, especially as pastors, which extends beyond personal holiness, as important as that is to be.
And in 1Co. 7, due to the normative desires btwn man and wife then sexual relations are enjoined, yet due to the normative nature of mankind and duties of marriage (which normally is to result in children) which distract from purely spiritual personal pursuit, then celibacy can be advantageous.
And which is especially exhorted in the light of expected judgment, the return of the Lord, or if speaking prophetically, of the calamitous judgment of 70 A.D. "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1 Corinthians 7:28),
However, a Godly wife can help a man be a better pastor, and if they both have single eyes for the Lord this can make for a more potent ministry. And such can raise future generations of believers, including pastors.
Thus while the ideal for all would be to be celibate, and not even have to eat, etc. yet both marriage, food, sleep etc. are blessings from God, and are overall practically necessary to varying degree and advantageous for achieving the Lord's purposes. And which overall applies to pastors as well.
.
Looks reasonable to me.
By definition, a pedophile is not seeking a healthy sex life.
Thanks.
If everybody ignores whatever questions may still beg, if we wait long enough, we can pretend none of it happened. That will make it easier for claims, accusations, denials, counter-claims and accusations regarding other issues (*any issue, just pick one, pick a dozen*) can pick up wherever they find place to.
Maybe I'll once again need settle for silence. Settle for lack of continuing disagreement as ground to place some small measure of hope -- "I wont have to say all this again, to the same persons."
The process is fatiguing. Sometimes I win the endurance test.
Enough of that. Gotta' go. It's off to Ebay (or somewhere) to buy myself one of those little trophies like they hand out to kindergartner t-ball players for participating.
One key point you led off with;
Marriage more the norm rather than exception. That's the real truth history shows.
Apologies for my having not replied sooner.
that’s where this is headed..
I agree. But if you are denied a healthy sex life, you may reach out in “other” ways, much as those in prison may do.
Sounds like a pretty good argument for requiring celibacy for conservative politicians. :)
In all seriousness, that's one of the reasons it will be difficult for Trump to become a true reformer - he has a lot to lose and his enemies are well aware of it.
.
That’s the way trophies are around here; unless you’ve just died, or have some dread disease, you have to fetch your own.
.
“Yet your imaginary first pope Peter was married... hey class can we say Hypocrisy
As far as I can tell;
The word “hypocrisy” is not fitting word, for this context.”
Hypocrisy might or might not be fitting, but to say that that a priest can’t be married and still claim that your first pope was married is in my opinion doing one thing and preaching another which equals hypocrisy. Now to suggest celibacy as Paul was would be different, but that’s just not the case is it?
Aah, yes. There is that. Which makes me a bit wrong. My apologies.
When I posted what I did, I was hoping to deflect charge of hypocrisy away Campion directly... That person is not the Pope, and other comments made by that person show reasonableness in this issue.
True. That's not what's being suggested (or else allowed) but instead is being insisted upon by many within RCC, or else hedged at, hemmed & hawed about leaving the situation as it is, in place (because that's what people have been trained to want and expect?).
Men who are celibate are no one's father.
Sometimes, people just don't want to work this issue out on the pages of FR. That's part of the difficulty in discussing this -- but not for me. I am free. And so are you too, I'd venture.
My historian friend was telling me back in King Alfred the Great’s day, priests could marry and they didn’t have this hogwash going on like they do now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.