Replies

An earlier thread on this topic contained a reference to a lengthy article, which I read.

It was quite interesting.

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.

Now to the article. Summarily, the author, who had studied the issue extensively, brought up continence--a very important link.

Most of the discussion on these threads has been specifically about celibacy--loosely, NOT being married. But continence is rarely brought up, because continence is deliberately sacrificing legitimate marital relations for the sake of a greater good. In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.

Secondly, the author mentioned the difference between "ius" and "lex." "Ius" is the unwritten law, whereas "lex" is the written law. It's sort of akin to manners: most of them are 'unwritten' laws, but failure to practice them is considered to be wrong, just as failure to practice the "written" manners is.

The author contends that the "ius" of the marriage question was that priests should NOT marry, or if they are ordained after marriage, that they should (with the assent of the wife) become continent.

The "lex" followed in around 1100-1200, whenever.

Both the "ius" and the "lex" were widely and flagrantly disobeyed, but by no means was this disobedience practiced by ALL priests at ALL times. It waxed and waned.

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.

Now let's argue.

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.

That's nice but your tradition clearly violates scripture. Jesus did not have any nice things to say about the Pharisees of his day who claimed that they were privy to tradition taught by Moses and handed down to them orally. He clearly said that their traditions were man-made and that it was wrong to place man-made traditions above scripture.
Another word for scripture is canon, which means measuring rod. We need to measure our traditions as to whether they comport with scripture. Do your research and you'll find that this is what most of the early fathers taught.
The parallels between the Jews piling man-made traditions on scripture and the church (not just Catholics) is enough to take your breath away. I suggest Alfred Edersheim's massive tome The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Finally, if we pretend that enforced priestly celibacy somehow doesn't violate scripture, then why was it not practiced by the early church?

---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.