Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?

beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon ^ | Wednesday, December 06, 2006 | Rod Dreher

[Kolokotronis]

"And where was the Holy Spirit, charged with guiding the Church of God, during all of this? Was He under Holy Spirit anesthesia? On vacation?"

I'll bet I've asked that question 50 times over the past couple of years and never have gotten an answer.

[wagglebee]

She had seven years of marriage with her husband before she was widowed.

I'm confused, are you relying on tradition for this?

[marajade]

No, I read the bible where is said seven years from her virginity. Hence, the word "from".

[wagglebee]

Cite the verse please.

[marajade]

Where is that lineage documented in the Bible?

[marajade]

It was already cited by another poster, I just responded to it. Luke 2:36-38. BTW, this scripture is about serving God night and day and has nothing to do with celibacy.

[wagglebee]

41 And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch,
42 And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast,
43 And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not.
44 And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day's journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance.
45 And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him.
- Luke 2:41-45

The Lord's parents (the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph) took Him to Jerusalem when He was twelve.

And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
- Luke 2:48

The Blessed Mother clearly refers to Saint Joseph, so he must have been alive.

But what is most interesting is that there is no mention of any other children and the reason for that would be that there weren't any. You see, the Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph's sole focus was caring for the Son of God.

[wagglebee]

Luke 2:36 talks about Anna, NOT the Blessed Mother! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOLY FAMILY.

[Diego1618]

There was a Peter there in Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD and his real name was Simon the Magician. He was there under Claudius and brought with him the sorcery of Babylon. There is your Babylon. It was brought to Rome by Simon Magus, the Samarian magician, who set up an ecclesiastical organization that ran parallel with the Church there in Rome.

Yup....and a little further background. [Acts 8:9-10]"Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power."

Where did Simon's ancestors come from? [II Kings 17:24] "The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns." And this is what they did when they got there. [II Kings 17:33] "They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought."

And this is the reason Our Saviour told the Apostles to stay out of Samaria. [Matthew 10:5-6] "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." This explains why Peter went to Babylon....not Rome. The "other" Simon went to Rome.

[GCC Catholic]

It isn't. But it doesn't have to be. We have other historical documents to tell us this.

As I've explained to other Protestant posters earlier last week, until you can prove BIBLICALLY that "Sola Scriptura" is Biblical, I am not bounded to prove it using that reasoning. We know these things from historical records outside of the Canon of Scripture, and no reputable source argues to the contrary.

This still has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

[marajade]

I never said it did have anything to do with Mary. Where are you getting that from?

Bornacatholic was using that scripture to support celibacy.

I replied to Bornacatholic that Anna wasn't celibate during her marriage from my reading of that scripture and the fact that it hasn't a thing to do with celibacy.

I don't think you have to worry about me and justifying "tradition" and my understanding from reading the Word.

[marajade]

You're right it doesn't, it kinda got a little off topic in this thread.

[wagglebee]

I was mistaken, I thought you were referring to the Blessed Virgin.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Babylon existed then."

Are you so sure it was worth the effort at that time?

"How do we know Peter wasn't there at the real Babylon?"

We have no reason to doubt the sources. Even Christians in Mesopotamia believe Peter went to Rome. Besides, which Babylon? There were two you know? The second one was in Egypt. Did you even know that?

[wagglebee]

We are no more bound to prove something based upon the false teaching of "sola scriptura" than we are bound to prove something based on the Koran.

[Uncle Chip]

Check Justin Martur and Irenaeus and other ante-Nicenes.

I have. Neither of them say anything remotely like this foolishness.

Hmmm --- Justin and Irenaeus have more to say about the facts of Simon Magus's bishopric in Rome than they do anything about that foolishness of Peter's mythical bishopric there.

[marajade]

But we are talking about Rome, Italy not Babylon, Egypt.

[marajade]

Except that the Catholic Church's whole faith and belief system is based on it.

[wagglebee]

No, the Church was founded nearly 1500 years before Martin Luther invented the falsehood of sola scriptura.

[marajade]

The Catholic Church hierocracy is not supported by the Bible.

Martin Luther and sola scriptura is not a concern of mine.