Posted on 11/16/2006 8:00:53 AM PST by SmithL
"Not all of your Priests are married and your Bishops are selected exclusively from the ranks of celibate Priests."
Your point being that I am a liar?
Whether you are a habitual liar or just simply confused in explaining the discipline of your faith remains to be seen. In this specific instance, you made a statement that is false. If you did it intentionally, then yes, you are a liar. If you made an honest mistake, forgetting that the Church which you are a member of regularly ordains celibates and your Bishops are selected exclusively from celibates, which is unlikely considering the number of posts you've made about celibacy and the clerical state on this forum, ... color me skeptical.
"If you made an honest mistake, forgetting that the Church which you are a member of regularly ordains celibates and your Bishops are selected exclusively from celibates, which is unlikely considering the number of posts you've made about celibacy and the clerical state on this forum, ... color me skeptical."
And my purpose in such a lie would be exactly what, some clever attempt to seduce Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy? Truth be told, most of the Roman Catholics I have seen who convert to Orthodoxy have a very, very hard time with the Orthodox mindset (if not the theology), more so even than evangelical Protestants. In any case, there is so far as I can see, virtually no reason why an Catholic should become a n Orthodox or vice versa, save perhaps on account of marriage. My post, as is clear, supports the Pope's position and since you have read my previous posts on clerical celibacy, you know that I believe, as an Orthodox Christian, that the celibate state is the highest human state if lived in conjunction with a monastic life.
Now, if your point was merely to inform the uninformed that indeed Orthodoxy has celibate priests and our bishops come from their ranks, then I stand gratefully corrected since it is conceivable that someone might have gotten the wrong impression. Unfortunately, I'm just as skeptical of your motivation as you are, apparently, of mine. Perhaps we should leave it there, OK?
Nowhere in scripture does it say that the clergy must be unmarried.
I make no claim to be a "Scripture expert". Do you?
Yes, I should have specified that I was referring to the Latin Rite Church. However, my previous post still stands. None of the churches in communion with Rome have ever permitted clerics to marry (or remarry) after ordination. However, that is exactly what today's advocates of a married priesthood want. They not only want the Church to ordain married men, they also want it to permit priests to marry after ordination, which would be a radical departure from tradition.
I repeat: YOU ARE IGNORANT OF SCRIPTURE
Nowhere in scripture does it say that the clergy must be unmarried.
In accordance with the teaching in Scripture manifested in the very words of Christ and St. Paul and the examples set by the Apostles themselves, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has adopted the discipline of celibacy for those seeking the Sacrament of Holy Orders. No one has a right to be ordained. Those who seek both ordination and a conjugal life have 21 Churches within the Catholic Church to choose from. The discipline of celibacy is more in accordance with the Priesthood of Christ, the sacrificing of self to serve the Kingdom of God and the teachings of our Lord:
"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48
I make no claim to be a "Scripture expert".
Then stop making foolish absolute statements like: I repeat; the "discipline" of unmarried clergy is unscriptural.
Do you??
Not as much of an expert as St. Jerome but far more of an expert than you pretend to be.
Not as much of an expert as St. Jerome but far more of an expert than you pretend to be.
English comprehension problem again. Read what I said and see how you can twist it any more than you have. "I make no claim to be a "Scripture expert".
Is that clear enough? If not, maybe my tag line will help you.
I repeat; the "discipline" of unmarried clergy is unscriptural.
I repeat: YOU ARE IGNORANT OF SCRIPTURE.
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
The requirement of celibacy was imposed by Pope Gregory VII in 1074.
You are ignorant of history as well as Scripture. Suggest you read Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira, for starters. You should also take a look at the definition of celibacy in a dictionary, as well.
You are simply ignorant of the topic you are attempting to discuss and that's the most charitable way that that fact can be expressed.
Is it clear to you that the "I" in this passage is Paul speaking about his wishes, not speaking for God? This is the same Paul that didn't believe anyone should get married because the world was about to end very soon. Get serious.
You are ignorant of history as well as Scripture. Suggest you read Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira, for starters. You should also take a look at the definition of celibacy in a dictionary, as well.
Are you joking?
The council of Elvira was a local council in Spain attented by nineteen bishops and 24 priests. Nothing from this council was binding on the entire Church.
Do you have any idea for how many years there were openly married clergy, including popes?
I will change my dogmatic statement slightly in the hope you can understand it.
The prohibition of marriage for the clergy is unscriptural!
You are ignorant of history as well as Scripture. Suggest you read Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira, for starters. You should also take a look at the definition of celibacy in a dictionary, as well.
You are simply ignorant of the topic you are attempting to discuss and that's the most charitable way that that fact can be expressed.
Wow! I'm almost as impressed with your brilliance as you are.
What I'm repeatedly demonstrating and you continue confirming is that you aren't very bright.
Just one Scriptual prohibition for married clergy. Just one. Please!
You are a moron.
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
Canon 752. While the assent of faith is not required , a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops , exercising their authentic magisterium , declare upon a matter of faith or morals , even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act . Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine .
Canon 753. Whether they teach individually , or in Episcopal Conferences , or gathered together in particular councils , Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College , while not infallible in their teaching , are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ 's faithful entrusted to their care . The faithful are bound to adhere , with a religious submission of mind , to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops .
Easy isn't it?
Of course these people wouldn't have cut the mustard with you.
Acts 17:
10: The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe'a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni'ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
12: Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
13: But when the Jews of Thessaloni'ca learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroe'a also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.
14: Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.
In the first place they checked the Scripture to assure themselves Paul and Silas were teaching the word accurately and second, they took charge and sent Paul off for his safety and to continue his mission.
How dare they to think for themselves and to usurp the "authority" of Paul.
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.