Doctrine Chief Hints at Scrapping Celibacy for Priests

Church Militant ^ | July 13, 2023 | Jules Gomes

[BipolarBob]

Thank you for your response. We’ll just have to disagree on what God has decreed. Applying medieval practices to now just seems like a stretch. To compare how modern day priests live with what the Apostles did is a night and day difference. I’m sure your Cardinals are well established in nice furnished homes. The priests have parsonages. Even the Pope has a luxurious palace with many servants. For them to have a family may cost a little more but if it saves your denomination from the consequences of pedophilia, it would be worth it. I think the parishes cow and chickens would be safe enough. But it should really be about what God wants and not what some church committee has decreed. Peace be unto you.

[Chickensoup]

The Episcopalian church is catholic lite with marriage.

There is no denomination where homosexuality runs more rampant.

[married21]

Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. There are a few married priests in the Roman Rite. They were Episcopal priests and they converted and became Catholic priests. There are also married priests in the Maronite Rite. That is an Eastern Rite that is loyal to Rome but has an orthodox style liturgy.

[BipolarBob]

Shame on them. But God doesn’t grade on the curve. His standard for us is very high. And Grace does not cover willful sin, contrary to popular belief.

[BipolarBob]

The shoe symbolism is an interesting parallel—in the culture, servants don’t wear shoes indoors—Moses, as a servant, approaching the Holy Place, should remove his shoes.

On the other hand, family does wear shoes in-doors—hence the prodigal son being shod. We are now sons—shoes are appropriate if one is to use shoes as symbolism.

Using your logic, the priests aren't servants of God (they're shod). And your Church must not be a holy place either (people walk there with shoes).
PS. There's nothing wrong with being a servant of God.Romans 1:1

[ebb tide]

I never said celibacy is dogma. See Post #13.

Secondly, exceptions don’t make the rule.

[married21]

I was clarifying for people who are not as informed as you.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yer not wrong. There is nothing stopping the Catholic church from waiving the vow of celibacy. I’m catholic I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

[MurphsLaw]

The RCC requires their priests and even higher positions in the Church to be unmarried.
This is un-Biblical.

Can you show me in the Bible where the it says the Church cannot require Priestly celibacy?
(Since Jesus' own words were not enough for you)

Can you show me in the Bible where it says where it says that every component of the Christian faith must be "biblical"?
(Realizing that the Bible came about centuries after Christ.)

[BipolarBob]

Your position and questions are nonsensical.
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good 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 burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
The RCC (and other denominations) has priests that burn with passion and the Church has not the stomach to stamp it out. So just keep on ignoring the problems and do the priestly shuffle from one parish to another to evade detection. I know I cannot change your mind on this so why continue this conversation?

[MurphsLaw]

My questions to you are very direct.
That you deem them nonsensical, is only your opinion in a weak defense.

Now again...
You accuse the Church of being "unbiblical" in requiring Priestly Celibacy ....

Can you back up that statement with something from the Bible-
that claims that the Church Christ promised to build
Must follow a mandate or requirement from the Bible?

What is the authority of your "unbiblical requirement" claim...
Or is it just a tradition of man?

[BipolarBob]

Paul, an inspired man of God, wrote celibacy was not required by God and I gave you examples of Godly men that were married. That's enough for me.
As far as your denomination goes, yes you can make up whatever rules you want. You can say everyone must wear purple pants and red hats. And no, I can't find a verse that says you can't do that. I'm not even going to try. The Bible says not to add to or take away from its texts. By staying within the guidelines of the Bible, we remain safe. By "doing your own thing", you will get what you get. But you will be judged by the fruit and if the fruit is adultery, sodomy and pedophilia, the punishment will be severe.

[MurphsLaw]

Bob, your dodging.
You made a claim that priestly celibacy in his Church is "unbiblical".
Either you can support that as true,
Or are you are making a false statement you know you cant.
Im not interested in Paul's personal opinion on celibacy either-
as he is not binding the Church either way in scripture concerning Apostles or Priests.
So thats a fail.

Though unbeknowst to you Paul advocates FOR celibacy...so...
Now you want to deflect to the silly "dont add to the bible text."
Where has the Church formally added to the canon of the Bible text- requiring priestly celibacy?
What book or verse then has the Church added text to as you claim?
The text of the Bible has remained the same and never has changed/ added to- to include priestly celibacy.
Where in the Bible does it say there are guidelines that we must stay within? Is there a guideline that binds a Priest to a required sexual nature?

Is the doctrine of the Trinity outside those guidelines you mention?

I think it is you who have made up
non-existent "unbiblical" rules to serve your personal purpose...
And are using the Bible as a way It was never intended for.

[BipolarBob]

Im not interested in Paul's personal opinion on celibacy either-

That's where we differ. I am interested in his writings. He was for celibacy for him personally. He was thought to be a widower. He was a man of God and God spoke to him. His words have weight. "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield to them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Prov. 30:5,6.
Though unbeknowst to you Paul advocates FOR celibacy.
How stupid of me to not know this. How exactly brought you to the conclusion I did not know this?
You made a claim that priestly celibacy in his Church is "unbiblical".
No, I made a claim that it is not a requirement of celibacy to become a priest or pastor. God didn't make that a requirement. Man did that. Man made denominations did that. Not God.

[Texas_Guy]

That happens when Jesus gives the leaders of the church the power to bind and loose. And your view that whatever is not mentioned in Scripture is banned is erroneous. If you want to take that view then stop wearing modern clothes, go back to robes and only meet in people’s houses.

[BipolarBob]

That happens when Jesus gives the leaders of the church the power to bind and loose.

Jesus gave those leaders that power. Those He chose and knew and had the Holy Spirit in them.

This was not handed down inherently to others who would abuse such power for selfish purposes. While God may imbue proven saved Christians with certain attributes (such as healing, prophecy, etc.), it is not taken for granted any denomination or group has such wide sweeping authority granted to those that were just starting a fledgling movement to evangelize the world at that time.

[cgbg]

They can’t stop all the pedophile priests—so they might as well throw in the towel...

;-)

[BipolarBob]

If you want to take that view then stop wearing modern clothes, go back to robes and only meet in people’s houses.

My view escapes you. If you were to require me to wear robes, that would be unBiblical. There's nothing to stop me from wearing robes and/or meeting in peoples houses for worship. Which I've done but without the robe wearing. I wore modern clothes.

[MurphsLaw]

That's where we differ. I am interested in his (Paul's) writings.
He was for celibacy for him personally.

I AM interested in Paul's Epistles of course.
His PERSONAL on take on celibacy is not necessary as for the purpose of this discussion.
Because CHRIST has already addressed the issue of celibacy-
(in the "Eunuch" quote you ignored.)
  Christ's words carry much more weight than Paul's.
We read them in The Mass liturgy everyday.
The Epistles in general are important for all Christians- and of course of real interest.
But as YOU agree... when you offered the proverbs quote:

"Every word of God is pure,
He is a shield to them that put their trust in Him.

Jesus Christ tells us celibacy is for a greater good...

Some have made themselves eunuchs
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

So WE KNOW how Christ felt about celibacy.
That cannot be ignored.
Would Jesus have a problem with celibate Catholic priests?
I dont think so.. why?

"He who is able to receive this, LET HIM receive it.”

Christ gave his authority to the Apostles to bind and loose for the new Christian converts.
He did not say "bind and loose according to the bible" (which did not exist yet)

Thats how the Jerusalem Council in Acts was able to happen.
That was a MAN made decision. Would Christ disagree with that decision?

You dont have a valid argument to deny the Church's authority to require celibacy of the Priest.
It was originally Christ's idea,
St. Paul mimics his teaching- and the practical advantages in ministry
to commit oneself to a life of serving God is something we should let those receive that gift.

[BipolarBob]

You dont have a valid argument to deny the Church's authority to require celibacy of the Priest.

I never said I did. I acknowledge that you can require celibacy, purple pants and red hats if that is what you want. I merely said it wasn't Biblical to require it.

"Some have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." ""He who is able to receive this, LET HIM receive it.”

Notice the wording "made themselves" (of their own volition) and the words "let him" (not force him and not require him).
Plus those times were different, walking from town to town and not knowing where you would spend the night.
Your man made denomination can make whatever rules you want. The same as the VFW hall or Book-of-The-Month Club. But understand God never required it.