That sneaky desperate Catholic Church is at it again

American Papist ^ | July 22, 2006 | Thomas

[wmfights]

"This priesthood is based on and flows from Christ’s own priesthood. A properly ordained priest of the Church shares in a heightened and special way in the priesthood of Christ because he offers to God the same sacrifice that Jesus offered to God the Father. "
_______________________________

I think you elevate your priests to a status that they do not deserve.

Kosta: I'm not sure but in your EO church don't your priests marry and have families?

[wmfights]

Please be clear on my points -- I have no objection to voluntary celibacy and chaste singleness wthin or without the ordained ministry of the Lord-- and I concur with all Apostle Paul wrote about the tension experienced between the two institutions....

But I fear the imposition of man's traditions over the authority of the Word of God form a serious artificial barrier and limitation...
_______________________________

Thank you that was a beautiful post.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The Catholic Church position demanding celibacy among the priesthood could be argued as quite unbiblical...

Only by those who are quite ignorant of Scripture.

The "tradition" of celibate life for ministers is the invention of men -- and Christans should prayerfully consider the Biblical point of view -- then I suspect recruiting would improve by God's grace given in the lives of these young candidates.

I suggest you read "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" and brush up on your knowledge of Melchisedech in Scripture, for starters.

Do we not have the right to bring a believing wife with us when we travel as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Peter? -- 1 Corinthians 9:5

Corrupted texts yield corrupted arguments. What St. Paul, a celibate himself, actually wrote in his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Corinthians 9:5

"For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I." 1 Corinthians 7:7-8

[FJ290]

Corrupted texts yield corrupted arguments.

Exactly! Excellent points.

[wmfights]

"It is OT and so is all the abortion stuff and personal stuff about my marriage in this thread."
______________________________

You've been around longer than I, but I noticed that when posters don't want to engage in a meaningful discussion they get personal. Again, an interesting topic that was largely ignored.

FWIW, I had an RC poster tell me one time that they equate criticism of their church as questioning their faith. We come from a different perspective, as Bible believing Christians, where questioning our church's practices versus what SCRIPTURE tells us is normal.

[FJ290]

You've been around longer than I, but I noticed that when posters don't want to engage in a meaningful discussion they get personal. Again, an interesting topic that was largely ignored.

Again, you and Marajade are equating her own personal opinions which she has stated freely on FR being exposed as a personal attack. That is not a personal attack.

[landerwy]

No, if you read you know what I said! Good bye!!

[landerwy]

sorry but you are wrong on that! No wonder the laws will not be changed to protect the unborn! But I'm done trying to explain so goodbye and may you be blessed in your righteous endeavors!

[FJ290]

No, if you read you know what I said! Good bye!!

Why are you dismissing me? Don't be mad. I really was trying to examine why you used God instructing the Israelites to kill pagans as an analogy.

[wmfights]

"Again, you and Marajade are equating her own personal opinions which she has stated freely on FR being exposed as a personal attack. That is not a personal attack."
_________________________________

I think if you wanted to yank that plank out of your eye you might see that those posts had nothing to do with the original discussion.

I can't imagine there is a poster on FR who hasn't posted something at one time or another that looking back they would have worded differently, or not posted at all. It strikes me as a tactic, by those who don't want to engage in an informative discussion, to research old posts and hold a poster to an impossible standard.

[ichabod1]

What a memory that interregnum is. The Holy Spirit woke me from my episcopalian slumber and said of Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I'd previously viewed with distrust and suspicion, "This is a Good Man, Follow him."

And the rest is history. I became Catholic last Pentecost.

[sitetest]

Dear landerwy,

"sorry but you are wrong on that!"

I'm not sure precisely what you're declaring in error.

"No wonder the laws will not be changed to protect the unborn!"

The laws can't be changed because the Supreme Court has arrogated the right to legislate on this matter to itself. When the people apart from the diktats of the black-robed usurping tyrants, their actions range from the relatively liberal abortion laws of New York to the newly-minted abortion law in South Dakota that bans absolutely every abortion for absolutely any reason.

"But I'm done trying to explain so goodbye and may you be blessed in your righteous endeavors!

You really haven't offered much by way of explanation. But the best to you, too.


sitetest

[NYer]

What a memory that interregnum is. The Holy Spirit woke me from my episcopalian slumber and said of Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I'd previously viewed with distrust and suspicion, "This is a Good Man, Follow him."

The Holy Spirit woke me up too ... from a deep slumber ... at 3am! Remembering that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was saying the Pro Eligendo Mass before the cardinals were to be sequestered in the conclave, I turned on EWTN's live coverage. He was delivering his homily and said:

"How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true."
FULL TEXT

I prayed the Holy Spirit would guide these cardinals to the right choice and He did.

I became Catholic last Pentecost.

Welcome home!

[FJ290]

I think if you wanted to yank that plank out of your eye you might see that those posts had nothing to do with the original discussion.

Pardon me, but I think it was germaine to the discussion. Speaking of yanking the plank out of someone's eye, Marajade holds others to a standard she herself does not keep.

I can't imagine there is a poster on FR who hasn't posted something at one time or another that looking back they would have worded differently, or not posted at all.

Oh come on..she meant it when she said she was pro-abortion, just as she meant it when she said she didn't want any children and that was a mutual decision between her and her husband.

It strikes me as a tactic, by those who don't want to engage in an informative discussion, to research old posts and hold a poster to an impossible standard.

Oh, I'm sure it does strike you that way since you are on the opposite side. Funny, the Catholics see it another way. If you want to discuss somebody holding people to impossible standards, look to who you are defending. She is holding others to standards she herself doesn't practice. Remember what Jesus said about being judged by what measure you mete out to others. Good day!

[Wings-n-Wind]

Let's take a peek at your extensive and informed language research in the structure of 1 Corinthians 9:5.

The Biblical Greek for "faithful" or "believing" is Strong's G79 adelphe used 24 times -- freely interchanged between "sister" (sibling) and "sister" (one connected by the tie of Christian faith)

The Biblical Greek for woman AND wife is gune (pronc. goo'nay -) Which is Strong's G1135 mentioned 221 times. 129 mentions are the GENERIC 1st definition: "a woman of any age whether a virgin, married, or widowed" The other 92 occurrences are SPECIFICALLY translated "wife" or "betrothed"

The chapter context tells us much concerning all of these enumerated rights of an apostle/preacher of the Gospel --

The upshot of the chapter is about these rights Paul gave up WILLINGLY -- not being required to do so... by the church in Jerusalem or the restrictive decree of any other Christian authority!

One other interesting thought and shedding light as a clarification -- the linguistics of 1 Timothy 3:1-5 can be inferred (without a stretch) to either PERMIT a married man to be ordained -- or even PREFER a married man as an elder/bishop --

SO THAT those assessing his calling, gifts, and maturity can observe his conduct in his primary God-given and blessed relationships -- with spouse... and children. vv5 sums it up...

For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? -- 1 Tim 3:5

The same word cited above is in this passage for wife.... Strong's G1135 -- gune

*****

Within the larger context -- the whole counsel of Biblical Scripture, we see the Kingdom of God expanding -- moving forward --
Progressing from law to grace,
From rites and rituals to a restored relational basis,
From bondage to freedom
From a few select anointed/appointed servants...
...To the Holy Spirit poured out on all flesh at Pentecost -- (Acts 2...)
And from our helplessness to a complete and eternal hope in the finished work of Christ!

As it is recorded that our Lord God sovereignly selected men of old ----with spouses-- as Leaders (Noah, Abraham, Moses), both Prophets (Hosea, Ezekiel), and Kings (David -- and the marriage champion: King Solomon) as anointed leaders --

A FEW QUESTIONS ARE BEGGED HERE!!

Why would the leadership of the New Covenant in Christ be required to be more restrictive, and not more free-- than the old covenant of law?

Do you think Jesus was speaking of himself -- as the coming bridegroom in the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1ff)

Do you see the Song of Songs as prophetic in the love of Christ for the church -- and in the heartsong of the Beloved woman who so adores her husband?

Why would the earthly covenant of marriage be used as a prophetic image of Jesus Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32)?

Please be clear on my main points -- There remains no objection to voluntary celibacy and chaste singleness within or without the ordained ministry of the Lord--

And I concur completely with all Apostle Paul wrote about the tension experienced between the two institutions (1 Cor 7).

But the imposition of man's traditions over the authority of the Word of God form a serious man-made barrier and a serious limitation...

I simply think that while chastity in singleness IS a requirement of God -- and celibacy in the ministry remains of wonderful value -- that forbidding marriage among those ordained of God is beyond the counsel of Biblical Scripture

(My surmise includes consideration of the Council of Elvira -- that insisted even married ministers refrain from the conjugal union with their God-given wives -- This "legislation" of mankind was "adopted" quite contrary to the face-value guidance of 1 Cor 7:3-4)

Such a hindrance denies a doorway to ministry to married men, ...at times weakens -- and certainly lately -- might lead to the bringing of reproach on the Lord's name and the reputation of the church.

I expect more than a few hidden and abominable sins.... and many quite embarrassing controversies and lawsuits might have been happily avoided..IF...

Those counted among the ordained had the option of Godly marriage and a loving wife-- This is the Lord's provision and blessing for the sexual expression of man -- --even ministers.

*****

ANOTHER CASE IN POINT:
BACK TO YOUR CITATION of 1 Cor 7:7-8 simply puts the em-PHAH'-sis on another syl-LAB'-le...

Every one hath his PROPER gift from God -- one after this manner (a gift of grace that enables celibacy)....

...and another that (the gift of faithful marriage to a believing wife)

BOTH GIFTS ARE PROPER!!
BOTH GIFTS ARE PROPER!!
BOTH GIFTS ARE PROPER!!
-- My whole point in a nutshell!!

Paul made it clear where he stood -- and what he preferred for others -- but set this guidance as HIS preference for his colleagues-- he DID NOT set this out as guidance from the Lord -- he as much as says this!

The esteemed and beloved leader of the Catholic expression of faith (whom I hold in high regard -- and my prayers) --Wears the ring of the fisherman -- Peter -- a common man, married when called of Christ!

**************

As we accept the whole counsel of Scripture -- We should prayerfully consider the glad reception with equal deference -- priests/ministers who are clearly called to celibate purity in their gift of singleness...

And we should likewise prayerfully consider the glad reception of God's gifts invested in others who are quite capable and unrestricted in of all of the works of the ministry who enjoy the blessings of a God-centered marriage and raising Godly children...

My conviction remains that all of the church might prefer to see thigns God's way -- to take the Word at face value -- and not complicate things -- ro even beguile ourselves either by adding unnecessary restrictions or taking unpermitted liberties.

*************

A final thought just for you. This discussion has been ongoing for a couple of days with a lot of dignity and deference to many points of view -- for the sake of study and unbroken fellowship.

I invite you to re-read your post and see if there is anything you might care to say or do.

If you don't see a need or correction there -- no big deal...

Ol' Alfred C was an officer and a gentleman -- as I recall my history.

Have an Oooh-RAH!! day....

[kosta50]

Kosta: I'm not sure but in your EO church don't your priests marry and have families?

Priests can be married, but not bishops. Celibacy (in the Latin Church, starting with the priest, and in the Eastern Church with the bishop) is a discipline and is neither theologically correct nor incorrect, althugh both churches value celibacy more than non-celibacy, and find suppoert for it in St. Paul's Epistles.

The Latin side sees in celibacy imitating Christ; the East considers celibacy a "natural" outgrowth of theosis.

[wmfights]

Thanks for the reply and information. I didn't believe it was biblically mandated either.

Why in your church are the bishops celibate? What is the thought behind invoking the discipline?

[kosta50]

Why in your church are the bishops celibate? What is the thought behind invoking the discipline?

The backbone of Orthodoxy – the ideal Orthodoxy – is complete devotion to God, and denial of worldy passion, which is exemeplified in monasticism. Orthodox bishops are drawn from monastic ranks, so their celibacy comes with them.

[wmfights]

I assume the Bishops oversee the Priests. If a man becomes a Priest he knows before hand if he gets married he can not advance in the church, is this correct?

Does the head of the EO church come from the monastic ranks exclusively?

[wmfights]

Have the sex scandals hit the EO church the same way they've hit the RC church? I don't know if its media bias or what, but I don't recall seeing reports on a problem in the EO church?