Vatican Synod Proposes Married Priests For The Amazon

Hotair ^ | 10/28/2019 | Ed Morrissey

[steve86]

“It’s simply the tradition of the Latin Rite to be celibate and is looked upon as an honor to Jesus Christ”

If this proposal goes through celibacy will eventually be seen as an oddity even for unmarried priests. Satan wins again.

Accept only the pre- Vatican II Church — anything else is an inferior imitation.

[Tired of Taxes]

A Protestant minister cannot celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Period.

Yes, and I was surprised by what he told me. And, yes, maybe I misunderstood what he said.

However, I know for sure he said he was raised Catholic and later converted to Protestant - I can't remember which denomination.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

A Protestant minister cannot celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Period.

Nor would a Christian want to celebrate the non-biblical "Mass."

Period.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

It seems the Apostles had all forsaken ("we have forsaken") the ordinary rights and joys and obligations of marriage and family life, and were willing to sacrifice everything in order to follow Jesus.

It appears you are confusing what Peter said with what Christ said.

[Salvation]

Married priests?

Surprise, most sexual abuse takes place in families. Not a wise move at all.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't think so. Here is the whole thing in context:

King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 19:27-29 27Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

---

This is a declaration that Peter and the Apostles had forsaken the ordinary life of home-wife-family-kids in order to follow Jesus.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“ This is a declaration that Peter and the Apostles had forsaken the ordinary life of home-wife-family-kids in order to follow Jesus.”

.....

No, you miss that He switched from the disciples to “every one.”

Greek makes it clear...

“ Matthew 19:27–30 (WUESTNT): *As for you, you who took the same road with me which I am traveling*; at the time when all things shall be restored to their pristine glory, when the Son of Man shall have taken his seat upon the throne of His glory, you yourselves also shall seat yourselves upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

*And everyone whoever is of such a nature* as to have abandoned houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for the sake of my Name, shall receive many times as much, and shall inherit life eternal. Moreover, many who are first”

Two groups:

1. The disciples who took the same road as Christ
2. Everyone who is of the same nature

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes, that makes it even wider, and so makes the point even better.

Only the Twelve will sit on the Twelve Thrones judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel .

But everyone (*everyone* of this sort, of this nature) who gives up home-wife-family-kids and the rest, for the sake of my Name, shall receive many times as much, and shall inherit life eternal.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“ houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for the sake of my Name,0

...

Yes, but it does not mention wives or marriage and in Greek.

“ houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for the sake of my Name, ”

[Buckeye McFrog]

Married priests? Surprise, most sexual abuse takes place in families. Not a wise move at all.

By that logic you should be arguing for celibacy for everybody.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Interesting. I looked Matthew 19:28 up in BibleHub and found that the word "wife"(wives) is mentioned according to:

King James Version
New King James Version
King James 2000
American King James
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Berean Study Bible
Berean Literal Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jubilee Bible 2000
Darby Bible
Webster's Bible
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation
and more(NIV,NHGB, etc.)

That makes me think that the most reputable translations, from the 16th to the 20th century, had the word "wives." I don't think these translators would have simply added the term.

That makes me think there must be minority/alternative Greek texts that don't have "wife/wives."

Now here's my question: the parallel verses in the synoptic are Mark 10:29 and Luke 18:29. Could you please look these up in Greek and see if they have omitted "wife/wives" too?

I'm off to see my rheumatologist so I may not get back to you til later. I'm not ignoring you. I just have a certain amount of doctoring in my "active senior lifestyle". :o\

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Matthew 19:28 - no word wives is mentioned in Greek.

As to translations, your mileage may vary widely, depending on how dynamic or literal the translators are. This means sometimes worlds are added to fill in blanks, or are missing in dynamic translations for the sake of readability. Unfortunately, some translators do not take into account the order of words in Greek - often arranged for emphasis.

Much of Bible exposition is correcting translations and then explaining them.

For this reason, my preference is always to study from a more literal translation when I am not using Greek.

But the "best Bible" is the one you read.

One of the most literal translations, the NASB, correctly excludes the word "wife" and "wives."

... Now here's my question: the parallel verses in the synoptic are Mark 10:29 and Luke 18:29. Could you please look these up in Greek and see if they have omitted "wife/wives" too?

Gladly.

Mark 10:29 - "Then Peter said, Look. As for us, having abandoned all our own private possessions, we became your followers, travelling the same road with you that you are taking.

And He said to them, Assuredly, I am saying to you, There is no one who has abandoned house or wife or brethren or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive how many times as much at this time, and in the age to come life eternal.

(Wuest: The New Testament: an expanded translation carrying the Greek sense of each sentence - nice resource, btw.)

Word wife is present in this passage.

Luke 18:29

Then Peter said, Look. As for us, having abandoned all our own private possessions, we became your followers, traveling the same road with you that you are taking. And He said to them, Assuredly, I am saying to you, There is no one who has abandoned house or wife or brethren or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive how many times as much at this time, and in the age to come life eternal.

(Wuest, K. S. (1961). The New Testament: an expanded Greek translation)

Word wife is present in this passage.

---

The issue becomes, how can a follower of Christ "abandon" a "wife" for the sake of the Kingdom of God...?

From Thomas Constable's Commentary (one of my former seminary profs):

"Giving up a wife may refer to giving up marriage rather than leaving a wife, or periods of separation to engage in kingdom business may be in view.

Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Lk 18:29).

I think this view squares with the totality of Scripture teaching concerning marriage, divorce, and abandonment.

Nothing about a preference for singleness, nor marriage.

Just a statement of reward for temporal loss.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for doing the Greek research! But this doesn't seem to clear up the difficulty. At the BibleHub Greek Interlinear NT site, it has "wife" at Matthew 19:28:

wife
gynaika
γυναῖκα›

.. .just as it does in the parallel verses in Mark and Luke. It gives the following credit:

"We are grateful to those who have made this project possible: Charles Van der Pool for use of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot Interlinear; Lockman Foundation for use of the NASB Exhaustive Concordance (Strong's); David Troidl and Christopher Kimball for use of the WLC with Strong's Tagging."

So it looks like the standard, Strong's-based Greek text and meaning.

I think we agree that the passage does not mean that men need to abandon their wives (or their children or other familial obligations.) Elsewhere in his Epistles, Paul says that a man who is guilty of neglect of his own flesh-and-blood (family) is worse than an infidel.

It does indicate, though, that Peter said he and the other Apostles had left

aphēken
ἀφῆκεν
has left
V-AIA-3S

home,family, etc.

The word has a range of meanings, according to Strongs: abandoned (1), allow (5), allowed (2), divorce (2), forgave (2), forgive (23), forgiven (23), forgives (1), gave...permission (1), leave (7), leaves (2), leaving (8), left (38), let (9), let...alone (6), let him have (1), neglected (1), neglecting (2), send...away (1), etc.

I'm no scholar, but as I understand it, it would not mean "neglecting or abandoning or divorcing" one's wife and kids, but rather, having left (core meaning) the way of life which involves obligations to dependents, wife and kids, etc. That would apply to celibates as well as to widowers with grown kids, for instance.

The subsequent verse, I hope, means that those who refrain from the "married, with kids" lifestyle for the sake of the Kingdom, will acquire, in their church family, many, many more brothers and sisters, etc. --- not many more wives!!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I think there are two issues we are discussing.

1. What Peter said
2. Christ's response to Peter about the Apostles
3. Christ's response about all disciples.

The meaning comes from Greek words used, how they are used, and the context in which this is said.

.....

The 3 larger points in all this:

There is no preference, nor command for people in ministry to remain unmarried and no unmarried ministry class.

Peter didn't say he, or the Apostles had given up marriage, based on this passage. He had a mother-in-law we know.

It was a message to all disciples and not to the Apostles, that all sacrifice will be repaid many times over.

....

So context of Matthew 19:28

Story of the Rich Young Ruler

Christ's statement that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than to get into heaven.

v. - Peter's question to Christ,

"Then Peter said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?”

v. 27, 28 - Christ's response to Peter about the Apostles

"And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

v. 29 - Christ's statement about all other disciples

“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.

20:1–16 - Christ's parable of the workers in the Vinyard

I'll finish up quickly because dinner is served!!

The point of the parable was that God will graciously do more for some of those who work for Him than His justice demands

In view of the context, the 12 disciples correspond to the workers hired at the beginning of the day, the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Those hired later correspond to other people who became Jesus’ disciples later in His ministry. One of these people might have been the rich young man if he had become a disciple (vv. 16–22). Peter’s question about what the Twelve would receive (v. 27) had implied that they should receive a greater reward since their sacrifice had been greater. This parable taught him that God would give him a just reward for his sacrificial labor for Jesus. Nonetheless God had the right to give just as great reward to those whose service was not as long. This parable taught the disciples not to think of heavenly rewards in terms of justice, getting in proportion to what they deserved. They should think of them in terms of grace, any reward being an act of God’s grace. Even those hired early in the day received a reward, and the landowner had been gracious and generous in hiring them and not others.

Thos. Constable again...

Sorry not more time to proofread for errors!

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are quite right that there is no dogma saying clergy have to be celibate. We have always had, and still do have, married men who become deacons and even (although exceptionally) priests ---for example, convert clergy, Anglicans who become Catholic, who are married, and who are permitted to become Catholic priests, and stay married.

Plus, 21 of the 22 Catholic Church (Byzantine Greek Catholic, Ukrainian, Iraqi Chaldean Catholics, etc.) --- they all recruit clergy from the ranks of married men. Only the West (by far the biggest of the Catholic churches) has the norm, the small-t tradition of celibate priests and that's only fairly recently,i.e. in the last 1000 years.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Keep in mind, too, that we know Peter *had been* married --- he had a mother-in-law. Whether he was still married at the time that he became an Apostle and "left" all --- his nets, his boat, his fishing partners --- all his means of livelihood and (presumably) all obligations toward dependents--- we do not know. He may have been a widower with grown children.

I don't think Our Lord would countenance a man with dependents ditching them without support, and going off to live like Our Lord, Who had no home, no place to lay HIs head.

We call this level of total renunciation ("no marriage, no property," etc.) a "Counsel of Perfection," not a commandment. It is for those who are called to it. It must be a choice freely undertaken: not a requirement for all who would be holy.