Posted on 11/08/2003 6:58:17 AM PST by ninenot
Actually, Snuff, this is my position. Ya gotta know when to do do nuthin'. The RCs have one major flaw, IMHO, and that is they think they are the only Catholics on the planet. Of course, they're not. If some churches want to keep celibacy of the clergy as a church rule, they certainly are entitled to do so.
If those born to Roman Catholicism wish to join one of the Eastern Churches, the Copts, The Syriacs,the Abyssinians, The Armenians, or whatever, what exactly is to stop them? It would in no way undermine their allegiance to the Bishop of Rome.
The Pope says that one can be saved by Grace alone, or by Grace and Deeds, which is the recommended Roman way. This is a Major Concession to the Lutherans, in preparation for joining forces again.
Yo, just 'cause it's religion, doesn't mean you can forget the international marketing. Remember St. Paul's marketing breakthrough? I.E., one didn't have to be a Jew to become a Christian. It took Christianity from an obscure middle Eastern sect, and put it on the world map.
You can't argue that the facts so the best you can do is call names.
Can't say it's nice to read your posts again--nor your cute little ingratiating lie about "respecting the Catholic Church."
I have given time and money to the Catholic church and to ministries that they support, especially pro-life ministries.
Please don't call me a liar.
You know the rules: speak the tongue or else. And if you don't go to the retreat--well, we all know. Protocol exists in all structures except when you declare yourself your own pope.
1. Could it perhaps be because most men are married?
2. Do you consider this fact an argument for banning marriage altogether?
This is really not one of those things that is open to much interpretation! Paul clearly says in several places that clergy may marry. He further says that it is a heresy to forbid marriage.
Why prohibit something that God clearly permits?
I don't deny that the church throughout history has condemned gnostic teachings, but some tenets have slipped through anyway. The notion of priestly celibacy can undeniably be laid squarely at the feet of gnosticism.
Celibacy is a practical oblgation. imposed on priests in the Latin rite. It has been retained because it has worked very well.
I would argue that it is not working very well at all. According to this article in the Kansas City Star, Catholic priests have AIDs at a rate of 4 times that of the general public. I would hardly tout that as a success story.
The problems encountered by the Protestant ministry/Orthodox priesthood do not take away from the benefits of a married clergy. My personal objection to the movement for a married clergy is that it is being driven by ideologues who make it part of a radical makeover of the Church.
I object as well to ideologues who would use the issue of priests marrying as a wedge to slip non-biblical teachings in the door. However, the same could have been said some 400 years ago about selling indulgences -- sure, selling indulgences is wrong but if we stop doing that then who knows what will happen?
Refusing to get rid of an unscriptural practice in case something worse might come in is like saying that it's better to keep on doing crack cocaine to keep from doing LSD.
Read the writings of the Church Fathers -- you might be surprised at how often they strongly disagree with the current teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Or the evangelical church, right?
Paul did recommend celibacy; so did Jesus.
Neither of them, however, demanded that their disciples be celibate. The Church has interpreted it that way, yet it has made exceptions (for the Anglican dispensation) and clearly honors the married tradition of the Eastern Rite.
All of the theological and logistical arguments (a celibate priest has more time for his flock) have melted away with the introduction of the permanent diaconate twenty years ago, and the overwhelming response by married men to the call of the Church to serve in a formal ministerial capacity. Over 15,000 men have been ordained to the permanent diaconate; that's an average of 750 per year, versus less than 300 per year for the priesthood during that time.
In many cases, these men serve full time, giving up lucrative careers. Now that my boys are grown, I'm thinking of doing that myself.
In any case, the argument in favor of celibacy seems to boil down to "well, it's a 1000 year old tradition" and because the Pope says so.
Not for an office in the Church.
Well, there were no "offices", and there was barely a "Church." But, it was clear that Paul desired that "you remain as I am" (i.e., celibate and unencumbered). And Jesus said that he would bless those who gave up father, mother, brother, and all things for the sake of the Kingdom. But, when the apostles questioned him about this "hard teaching," he said "Let him accept it who can."
Our Church is a Eucharistic Church, with the Body and Blood of Christ at the center of our worship. It is not a clerical Church, with the focus on priests and bishops.
If we do not have enough men to celebrate the Eucharist, it is incumbent on the Church leadership to figure out a way to provide more men for that purpose.
As it stands now, the Church leadership is content to designate "Lay Leaders" for "Communion Services" in the absence of an ordained priest to celebrate the Eucharist. The danger here, in my view, is that the faithful will come to accept a lack of priests as the status quo, and these Communion Services as sufficient.
Celibacy is merely a discipline; there is no theological, logistical, or practical reason to exclude married men from the priesthood.
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.