Call To Action: Dump Celibacy

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 11/8/03 | Tom Heinen

[RobbyS]

The canon refers to the Scriptures that were read in the Churches. The ordinary Christian seldom knew more scripture than he heard in Church. The Bible as we know it, a small, single bound volume, was not available even in Latin until the 13th Century. So how could this be the rule by which a Christian could determine which doctrine was correct?

[DallasMike]

Are you so sure that you really know what Paul was talking about, I mean what he had in mind as he wrote? 

Yes, I am sure, and it’s clear that the early church knew nothing of priestly celibacy until it ran into the heresy of gnosticism. The scriptural text is very plain on its face and one would have to try extremely hard to force it mean something else. 

Okay, one more time: 

1Ti 4:1  But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,
1Ti 4:2  through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3  forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.  
 

I really don’t need a theology degree to figure out that Paul is prophesying about a time in which some church teachers will claim that forbidding some to marry is a doctrine of God, when in fact it is a doctrine of demons.

 
Mat 8:14  And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever.  

Peter was married. Claiming that Peter might have been married at one time but his wife had died is really quite a silly argument because Paul also writes: 

1Co 9:5  Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?  

Clearly Peter’s wife was not dead and clearly she and the wives of other apostles traveled with them. There is no mention either of the idea of continence either that ninenot brought up. That’s just another silly excuse to justify a false teaching that has no scriptural or historical foundation.

Further, it is evident from the above passage that the apostles generally were married. The phrase Paul used is hoi loipoi apostoloi (“the remaining apostles,” or "the other apostles"). 

1Ti 3:2  The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  

1Ti 3:12  Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 

I don’t take this to mean, as a very few do, that a church officer has to be married, because Paul obviously had much praise for the celibate life and stated that some were called to it. Note that Vigilantius, a presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth century held the view that clergy must be married – proving, if nothing else, that priestly celibacy was definitely not a doctrine at the time.
 

[DallasMike]

The canon refers to the Scriptures that were read in the Churches. The ordinary Christian seldom knew more scripture than he heard in Church. The Bible as we know it, a small, single bound volume, was not available even in Latin until the 13th Century. So how could this be the rule by which a Christian could determine which doctrine was correct?
 

First of all, they had the Hebrew scriptures which were readily available.

Second, we know that the writings of the apostles were considered to be scriptures and that they were widely circulated amongst the churches:

2Pe 3:15 Think of our Lord's patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him.

2Pe 3:16 He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter elevates Paul's writings to the same level as the rest of the scriptures. Note that people were already distorting the scriptures in Apostolic times, which is why I'm wary of embracing a tradition just because it happens to be old. An old, wrong tradition is no better than a new, wrong tradition.

Third, we know from archeological evidence that there were thousands upon thousands of copies (if only sometimes fragments) of the New Testament writings circulating throughout the churches. They might not have had access to a small, single bound volume as we do, but they certainly had access to the scriptures.

Finally, the early church had the apostles themselves teaching them and the apostles verified that were from God with miracles and signs.

 

[invoman]

---Now let's argue---

I LOVE this! Sincerely.

Ok...onto the points:

---First of all, the Church's beliefs are based BOTH on Scripture AND Tradition--there are some things which were practiced, or orally transmitted, which were not written down. Thus, while Scripture provides foundation, it is only 1/2 of the foundation(s) on which the Church operates.---

I can only argue from a point that I believe that the true Church is NOT confined to a denomination such as the RCC or Protestant. I will exclude Islam, Hindus and all other abominations. By abominations I mean those who deny Jesus is the Son of God and our Saviour.

When you state that scripture provides the foundation, I agree. But when you say it is only 1/2.. the Bible says:

2nd Thes. 2:15:

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In fact, read the whole chapter for a clear context. I AGREE there were traditions AND this verse says to STAND FAST and to HOLD to them. So why the CHANGE? Isn't the 'change' violating the 'stand fast' and 'hold' portion?

Again, read the entire chapter for context. The verse, written above, does not say: "Therfore, brethren, listen to whatever we decide is going to be tradition....". No. Rather it says STAND FAST and HOLD. I reject further traditions (spiritual in nature, but conceived by man) after the scripture was written. To accept them means one has not stood fast and held, but has MOVED.

2 Thes. 2 is a very powerful chapter and I encourage all to read it, in context. It deals with very timely subjects, such as these.

---In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.---

Yep. Except that we find that this self restraint is tempered with the second tenet (of three) of this doctrine: Fasting. (One and three are consent and prayer)

To be concise:

1st Cor. 7:5

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Clearly fasting is an integral part of the consent. So, if I may be so bold, I claim that when one is eating he/she has NO authority to claim the above verse. And NEVER as to refuse an advance...(as written it be with CONSENT and FASTING and PRAYER). At the end of the fast/prayer/consent session a man MUST be with his wife....that SATAN will not tempt you.

---Summarily: 1) Continence was part of the Tradition, and both continence and celibacy should be considered when discussing the matter. 2) What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law. This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture.----

Continence was not tradition, it was scriptural as shown above. But....have a meal and you had better be having sex. Why? The author CLEARLY explains why! And what does verse 6 say?

6:But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

So, if you take Pauls advice, you had better follow it through and not eat while being continent! Otherwise you are fair game for Satan.

When you say, "What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law." I can't help but disagree.

We are FREE from the law. Romans explains this quite clearly. FREEDOM from the law brings joy. I, myself, struggle with this. But it nonetheless remains...freedom from the law.

And in finality:
---This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture---

Disagree. By reading 2 Thes. 2 I read that the tradition was already taught and finalized. No need for something new that scripture forbids.

I hope we can keep this an honest debate.

[DallasMike]

I AGREE there were traditions AND this verse says to STAND FAST and to HOLD to them. So why the CHANGE? Isn't the 'change' violating the 'stand fast' and 'hold' portion?

Bingo. You have the "tradition" of priestly celibacy contradicting both scripture AND the tradition of the early church.

And by the way, if tradition is important enough to supercede scripture, then why hasn't the Catholic church published a book containing all of the tradition that the apostles supposedly taught? Doesn't that smack of a secret knowledge that only the initiated have access to? Yep, there's that old Gnosticism again.

Why was it a thousand years before the "tradition" of priestly celibacy was enforced and almost two thousand years until the "tradition" of the Assumption of Mary was formalized? What other traditions are there that we don't know about? Enquiring minds want to know.

[invoman]

Nice stuff DallasMike.

[DallasMike]

Continence was not tradition, it was scriptural as shown above. But....have a meal and you had better be having sex. Why? The author CLEARLY explains why! And what does verse 6 say?

You've done well, my son!

[invoman]

You've done well, my son!

(Implies you are a father of me)

Sorry, against scripture. I already have one.

[montag813]

I'm not Catholic so have no stake in this, but wouldn't getting rid of the celibacy requirement (or somehow doing it partially, lay priests or something) help with the pedophile issue and the numbers of gay priests?

Celibacy has nothing to do with Jesus or God. It was instituted rather late in the game by the Cathlolic Hierarchy to control their vast land holdings in Europe, which were being passed down by Bishops and Cardinals to their heirs.

[invoman]

---It was instituted rather late in the game by the Cathlolic Hierarchy to control their vast land holdings in Europe, which were being passed down by Bishops and Cardinals to their heirs.---


As prophesized in scritpure. See post 182 and the first couple of paragraphs. In particular the scripture portion.

[invoman]

1522: Martin Luther condemns celibacy.

Interesting sidenote.

I don't agree with everything he said/wrote but I find, after reading scripture, I agree with most of what he said. I've never read anything much by him, but I'm intrigued that I draw the same conclusions he does in most instances.

It doesn't take a scholar to read scripture.... but it takes a believer to understand.

Doubt the above? Then why does Satan believe he will win?

[ShadowDancer]

So, I guess by your logic I couldn't understand a really messy divorce unless I'd been through a really messy divorce.

Emotionally? Of course you couldn't.

[Catholicguy]

Got'cha. You don't need facts to draw a conclusion when it comes to things you bear an ideological opposition to.

[ninenot]

The operative term in your sentence is "Was."

Yes, Peter had a wife. We don't know with certainty that she was alive when JC called Peter. We ALSO don't know whether (if she was alive) Peter and his wife vowed continence...but Tradition would suggest that that was the case, if she were alive.

[ninenot]

The "forbidding men to marry" thing referenced in Titus dealt with a heresy which eventually (and with accretions) became known as Manicheanism.

[ninenot]

And of course, "Forbidding...to marry" is not quite the same as "Volunteering celibacy/continence" for the sake of the Kingdom.

One can force a reading any way they want, but imposition of a discipline versus voluntary acceptance of same are two VERY different things to people not residing in Dallas and attacking the Church.

[ninenot]

It would seem as though you are over-reading. In the passage re: fast/continence, there is NO reason to infer that it is directed to priest-candidates/priests.

On the other hand, we know that several of the Apostles chose to remain single and we do NOT know exactly what was the status of Peter's wife (alive, but when?) and even if she were alive through all of Peter's life, we certainly do not know if they continued marital relations.

We are FREE from the Law

Not exactly. We are free to do what is right, or JC would not have referenced the Commandments in the story of the young man who sought to be 'perfect.' Recall that JC said to him: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all your things, and follow Me." Although the story does not tell us whether the young man had a wife (likely he did not) this 'freedom from all things' implies a similar freedom from marital encumbrance. What we DO know is that the current ceremony for ordination of deacons (a step away from priesthood) STILL includes a vestigial reference to continence--that is, the wife's explicit acceptance of same, EVEN THOUGH such is no longer required of deacons (unless they are in the Seminary program to become priests.)

As I pointed out in another post above, there is also a BIG difference between "imposing" celibacy from the outside and "accepting" celibacy (or continence) from the 'inside.' The evidence and the Tradition clearly show that continence/celibacy was the accepted norm for priests, although it was often ignored or violated (sin happens...)

Finally, we know that Revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle, but within such Revelation and Tradition there are logical implications. To make such implications explicit is not to change, but to acknowledge their existence.

After a bit of puzzling over other items, I came to acknowledge that the Church is eminently the Church of common sense. This is not to state that other Christian religions are NOT common-sensical; but that the Church's teachings and decisions reflect 'common sense' consistently, in regard moral, doctrinal, and disciplinary matters.

[nmh]

Matt.8:14

[14] And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Nothing here indicates Peter's wife was dead. It's unwise to change God's Word to fit it with "tradition".

[nmh]

"Er, but his wife had died. No wait -- he left her behind when he travelled. No, I've got it -- they stopped having marital relations because it was a naughty thing to do. Yeah, that's the ticket. The list of excuses I've seen to get around this plainly stated fact is simply amazing!"

Amazing isn't it? Determining his wife is dead. Then it's wrong to follow Jesus. Next they stopped having marital relations because it was naughty. All from this clearly stated verse:

Matt.8:14

[14] And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

I suspect it is NOT God's Word they follow. Rather it is the word of some fallible mortal who's got a different "religion" and tradition going on.

[gcruse]

You don't need facts to draw a conclusion when it comes to things you bear an ideological opposition to.

Which condemns nonscriptural tradition, too. Gotcha.