Posted on 01/12/2020 4:22:11 PM PST by ebb tide
Edited on 01/12/2020 7:10:50 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
What Paul says by “way of concession” is that he wishes everyone to be as he is. The duties of spouses is an imperative. Biblical imperatives apply just as much to pastors as to laymen in the faith.
The Bible instructs us to follow the traditions of the Apostles - which is what the NT scriptures are. The scriptures are the only remaining infallible source of Apostolic tradition - that’s what makes them scripture.
perhaps, but that does not give license to impose any meaning you want merely on the basis of preconceived notions.
Scripture IS dogma. And the verses I cite are contained in the oldest Greek texts we have. They are also contained in the Latin Vulgate, in all 5 editions of Erasmus’ Greek text, in the NAB and in the Douay-Rheims English translation.
And there’s evidence he did - so that’s no argument for celibacy.
“No’ evidence he did. (Typo)
The brothers and sisters of Jesus say what????
The Catholic Church does not have “merely preconceived” notions. It has the full Bible and tradition. It is the Protestants who have contrived tens of thousands of self conceived theology. This is a result of individuals who read the Bible to fit their own notion of theology. They use verses against other Christians as if they were clubs. I lived as a Protestant for over 50 years. God and Mary led me to Catholicism. It is like finally coming home.
Yet Paul did not exercise this right, nor do we know if Peter continued to have marital relations or practice marital constancy, as the Jewish priests did while serving in the Temple and as was common in the West among Christian priests from the earliest times. The fact that Peter had a wife proves nothing.
So you are just more comfortable with letting other mere men do you thinking for you. So be it.
No, the immediate antecedent is returning to one's spouse after a temporary separation of bed, and this in contrast to his desire that everyone be as he is.
Biblical imperatives apply just as much to pastors as to laymen in the faith.
A concession is not an imperative. In any case, Paul is clearly giving his own counsel, not a Biblical commandment.
I am doing this from my phone. Makes it tough :). Tradition goes way beyond the New Testament. One of the shortcomings of being Protestant is the short 500 year existence. And as a result missing on the generation upon generation consistency Jesus’ Church enjoys.
In any event, you sound like a good Christian over all. But you really should not try to dissuade Catholics from their solid theologically beliefs. Many are not fully aware just how solid Catholic theology really is. Including the Basillica being built upon the grave of St Peter. We also have absolutely incredible miracles in the Shroud of Turin. Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadeloupe, countless Saints like Padre Pio, etc.
The depth and breadth of the Catholic Church is true beauty and love. One out of five inhabitants of this earth are Catholic. We educate, feed, give health care more people than any other entity on earth.
Yes, I love the Church Jesus himself started.
I am not claiming that this is evidence for celibacy. Rather, given that there is evidence that priests in the early church did practice marital constancy, the fact that Peter was married is not an argument against celibacy. All that we know about Peter was that he had a wife; period, full-stop, end-of-story. Any claims beyond this is pure conjecture.
Good grief. Romans have more hangups over sex.
*****
5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. 7But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years. Luke 1:5-7 NASB
*****
An oft-repeated lie. Priestly celibacy, or more properly constancy, was the rule in the West from Apostolic times.
Well, this has been debunked....again. Yet I am sure the Roman will continue to repeat the false information.
Like so much of Roman Catholicism this was a later development not witnessed in the New Testament.
*****
The fact that Peter had a wife proves nothing.
Actually it proves a lot of what Rome has advanced is.....WRONG.
Not only did Peter have a wife but....
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 NASB
Sure seems like a lot of folks got married back in the day.
I'm willing to bet that like Joseph and Mary they had marital relations....IOW....SEX.
No, Rome has added to the Scriptures by elevating fallible "tradition" to that of infallible Scripture.
It is the Protestants who have contrived tens of thousands of self conceived theology.
Oh please....not this debunked and discredited argument.
The Roman Catholic who continues to advance this nonsense has really lost all credibility.
*****
I lived as a Protestant for over 50 years. God and Mary led me to Catholicism.
Always with Mary for the Roman Catholics.
You may have joined another denomination, but the question is.....do you trust in Christ and only Christ for your salvation?
You're changing your argument now that its been proven wrong by Scripture.
Rather, given that there is evidence that priests in the early church did practice marital constancy, the fact that Peter was married is not an argument against celibacy.
Beginning around the 4th century. That's a bit past Peter and the Apostles time.
*****
All that we know about Peter was that he had a wife; period, full-stop, end-of-story. Any claims beyond this is pure conjecture.
Well, your "tradition" says both he did have kids.
*****
Keep trying....your argument continues to fall to pieces.
Your citation about Zacharias does not imply what you think. The Jewish priests did not serve in the Temple constantly; they did so in rotation and while they served in the Temple they refrained from sexual relations with their wives.
It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall at times with the Roman Catholic.
Not at all. I have always presented the case for celibacy as coming from Church practice, and not from a Biblical mandate. My discussion concerning Peter was just to refute the false idea that since he was married that he must have continued to have relations with his wife as an apostle. It is possible that he did; it is also possible that he practiced marital constancy as did many in the early church. The truth is that we have no testimony either way. But since celibacy/marital constancy is admittedly a church discipline and not a Biblical mandate, it does not make a difference. What is clear, however, that the claim that it was an invention of the Middle Ages is false. There is clear evidence that it was the rule in the West from the earliest years.
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.