Posted on 01/24/2018 8:50:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The better question is what is keeping these men from serving God as ordained clergy?
The answer: Roman Catholicism.
Think about that.
Rome is standing in the way of God.
It seems the Roman Catholic goes out of their way to take the clear meaning of a text and misapply it to fit their dogma.
That eisegesis....not exegesis.
Exactly.
Rome is setting up criteria for clergy that God NEVER instituted.
God’s plan not only allowed for married leadership, it required it.
So you are quite correct, what is standing in the way of married men who want to be clergy is the Roman church.
And from the church that claims it never changes, this wasn’t always the case.
What do you mean the Catholic Church is preventing married men from serving as ordained clergy? We have well over 15,000 in the USA alone.
Fifteen thousand.
But evidence-based argument does not seem to interest you.
Good post thanks for the Scripture reference.
I think Stingray put it best in layman’s terms too although of course the Scripture passage you provided puts the Church’s reasoning most compactly.
There’s nothing wrong with being married and a priest per se, it’s just that the Church recognizes just what St. Paul did, that an unmarried man has fewer things to concern himself with so his flock can be his primary concern more easily.
I’m pretty ambivalent, as a Catholic, to this whole issue myself. I can see both sides of the issue and since it’s not a dogmatic issue it could go either way. But we do have many centuries of tradition that have produced many holy priests in this fashion, so I lean more to keeping the status quo.
OTOH, I really can’t see any harm, except for as stated above, in allowing a man who is already married become a priest. We already let such become deacons.
Can a single priest in the RCC get married and remain a priest?
If he's married, though, he can become a priest according to the canons of the Eastern rites.
But if he has freely promised obedience and celibacy--- he chose to make those promises--- he's expected to keep his word.
A man who does not want that way of life, with promises of obedience and celibacy, should not be choosing that life (!)and making those promises (!) Nobody's forcing him.
So as to avoid any ambiguity, the "Eastern Rites" (or Eastern or Byzantine Churches) are Catholic, just as the "Latin Rite" (or Western Church) is Catholic. In our present discussion I have not been speaking of the Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Catholic Churches are "Roman" in the sense that they are in communion with the See of Rome, but they have their own distinctive canon law.
Is it your opinion that adelphên does not mean "sister(s)" and gynaika does not refer to "women"?
I'm just trying to get a more accurate idea of your position here.
Thanks.
I'm talking about Roman Catholicism.
Rome has implemented an unnecessary burden as it always does upon its adherents.
Paul is writing about wives in the passage in question.
Yes...and the links or references are provided.
Yes. I'm asking for your sources.
If you wish to look into the marital status of the Apostles, I recommend looking in the New Testament.
Yes. Already have. We have evidence some were married from the texts. Were all married? We don't know. But we do know some were. That's the point.
For early (First and Second Century) Bishops, I would suggest you look up the Apostolic Fathers. To go a lit later, research the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It is perfectly honorable to Google those very words.
We do have evidence there were those who were married. Why? Because Rome eventually got around to barring them from having sex with their wives. Rome's own "tradition" ends your argument.
The ban on priests being married was a latter development by Roman Catholicism based primarily on economic reasons....not Scriptural as there is no ban on being married and serving God.
When you have evidence of the existence of spouses, I am all ears.
Saint Peter, the first pope, was married. In fact Jesus healed his mother in law. (See, Matthew 8:14 and Luke 4:38-40). A mix of people followed the apostles, some were married, some were not. Some were celibate and others not. There was no uniform rule.
In 304 AD, the first written requirement for those seeking ordination to remain celibate can be documented. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira required all clergy to abstain "from their wives and not to have children." Some Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians give lesser credence to this council and the practice of ordaining married men to the order of deacon and priest has a long history in their ranks.
Emperor Constantine rejected a blanket ban on married men being ordained as priests in 325 at the Council of Nicaea. Some priests had wives, others did not.
For nearly a thousand years a patchwork of rules applied in various places, some allowing married men to be ordained, but only if they agreed to abstain from relations with their wives, and so on.
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII issued a decree requiring all priests to be celibate and he expected his bishops to enforce it. The decree stuck and celibacy has been the norm ever since in the Latin Rite. http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=70507
I think that should end the argument. This was not some"tradition" passed down by the Apostles. It was contrived by Roman Catholicism for whatever reason as is so much of what Rome advances.
In 1 Cor. 9, Paul is talking about his ability and the ability of the other Apostles, to obtain support for their work in the mission of spreading the Gospel and organizing local churches.
You'll notice that there isn't any discussion of seeking marriage, as such, in this chapter: rather, the emphasis is on whether they should work for their living (v. 6) and provide for their own expenses (v. 7). He says not even an ox is expected to work without being fed (v. 9) and that that applies to humans, too (v. 10) Then he says he has not exercised this right to ask for support (v. 12-15) because he didn't want to hinder the Gospel or burden people in any way.
The context is not "marriage." The context is "support for the mission." The question being addressed is not "Can I get married?" but "Can I travel accompanied by, literally, 'sister women' (adelphên gynaika) who support and assist in the mission?"
He's not asking whether he can be wedded to these female assistants. He's saying, "Isn't it true that, like the other Apostles, I could ask these women to provide support for my mission?"
Related texts (Matthew 27:55; Mark 15:41) say that there were women (gynaica) who supported and assisted Jesus, without implying that they were married to Him.
Similar texts refer to women (gynaica) who followed, or traveled with, or supported and ministered to, the Apostles (Acts 17:4; Philippians 4:3) or who were fellow-laboreres with them. In not one case are they portrayed as getting married to the Apostles.
Thank you for your highlighting of context. It is of key importance, that's for sure.
BTW I'm out for the rest of the evening, but I'm up for discussing the context in 1 Cor 9 in detail tomorrow, if you'd like.
It's a topic of great interest to me. Thanks.
If I recall correctly, weren’t you, Mrs. Don-o, arguing on another thread not that long ago that married priests WERE allowed in the Roman Catholic church? It’s hard to keep the arguments straight when the goalpost keep getting moved.
The RCC can impose any rule it wants or qualification it wants on its clergy.
We just need to understand it is not based on the New Testament. It was a latter development in Roman Catholicism....as so much of what Rome advances is.
I tell ya, Mrs.D....the more I peel back the layers of Roman Catholicism I find more false and erroneous teachings.
I encourage all Roman Catholics to come out of Roman Catholicism and become Christians.
That's Roman Catholicism....always moving the goalposts. And for the group that claims they've been doing it the same way for 2000 years don't cha know.
The word as used there is plural...γυναῖκες. As used in 1 Cor 9:5 it is single γυναῖκα....as in one believing wife.
The word γυνή can convey the meaning of woman, wife, my lady.
Again....context is your friend in understanding how a word is used in the passage.
We know Cephas was married. From the passage in question we can tell the other apostles were and the brothers of the Lord (you know....the sons of Joseph and Mary).
The use of ἀδελφὴν (sister) in conjunction with γυναῖκα, indicates Paul is talking about a married woman....the wife of the apostle.
This is why I say context is key to understanding the Scriptures.
And if a man who is a priest meets someone he wants to marry, he must make the choice, the marriage or the priesthood.
He CANNOT do both.
I know that priests who want to marry are forced out of the priesthood and not allowed to continue to be priests.
Seen it up close and personal in my extended family.
If the Roman church really, truly allowed married priests, the there would be no vows of celibacy and no restrictions on married men becoming priests.
When any and all men who want to become priests are allowed to do so even while married, then get back to us.
\
But it’s simply not true that married men are allowed to become priests. Any priest who wants to marry is kicked out.
No. They force him out.
Happened in my family.
No, he didn't freely choose obedience and celibacy.
They hung becoming a priest over his head.
He didn't have a free choice.
He either agreed or didn't COULDN'T become a priest.
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.