Posted on 12/16/2006 1:07:45 PM PST by Zemo
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?
A Protestant friend who saw the video of Father Plushy giving his Barney blessing -- and truly, I don't know what is more irritating, the priest or the full house of ninnies who sat there singing and clapping -- writes this morning to say:
That video you just posted is the best single argument I have ever seen for ending the celibacy of the priesthood.
Well, maybe. One is entitled to wonder how seriously Father Plushy takes his vow of celibacy, or anything about the dignity and responsibilities of the priesthood. Still, even if priests were allowed to marry, why would that necessarily prevent future Father Plushies from entering the priesthood? On paper, it wouldn't, but if it made the priesthood open to men who would consider it if they could also fulfill vocations as husbands and fathers, it seems to me that you'd stand a greater chance of creating a more healthy manly culture within the ranks of clergy.
Priestly celibacy is not a dogmatic teaching, but rather a discipline of the Catholic Church. The Pope could not overturn the Church's teaching on (say) abortion, but he could theoretically change the celibacy discipline with a stroke of his pen. But should he?
Mandatory clerical celibacy is a discipline that was imposed on Catholic clergy in the Middle Ages. In the Orthodox churches, priests are still permitted to marry, as was the ancient practice. There are limitations on this -- you have to marry before your ordination, and the bishops are drawn from the monastic ranks, which means they must be celibates. But parish priests can and do have families. I've been going to an Orthodox church for a year or so now, though only in full communion for a few months, and I see that the two priests at my parish -- both of whom are married, and have children -- are really wonderful. I find it hard to understand why the Catholic Church insists on clerical celibacy.
Well, let me take that back: for many conservative Catholics, the celibacy requirement is seen as a valuable sign of contradiction to our oversexed age. That resonates with me. I think, though, that it's also the case that many orthodox Catholics resist thinking about ending the celibacy discipline because it's something that progressive Catholics have been pushing for, and to do so would appear to be a major concession to their agenda. But I tell you, after the Scandal revealed how the Catholic priesthood has become heavily gay, and at least some of the gays in the priesthood in positions of power were shown to be systematically using their power to discourage straight men considered a threat to them from continuing in the priesthood -- the "Goodbye, Good Men" thesis, and believe me, I have heard directly from seminarians and priests in the trenches how this works -- more than a few orthodox Catholics (including at least one deeply conservative priest) have said to me that it's time to consider ending mandatory celibacy. Before I even considered becoming Orthodox, I had spoken to Catholic friends about my own doubts on the wisdom of maintaining an exclusively celibate clergy (the distinction being that there will always be men and women called formally to the celibate state, and they must be honored and provided for, as they always have been in the Christian church.)
I think they're right. I mean, look, by year's end we will have seen ordained to the Catholic priesthood of two former Episcopal priests, Al Kimel and Dwight Longenecker, who converted to Catholicism. I have every expectation that they'll be wonderful, faithful, orthodox Catholic priests. And they are also married men. If they are to be welcomed and affirmed as Catholic priests, why not others? To be sure, these men are not campaigning for the end of the celibacy discipline, and as the Longenecker article I linked to in this sentence brings out, a married clergy poses special problems of its own.
Still, I think it's worth talking about, especially because to open up the Catholic priesthood to married men requires no change in the Church's doctrinal teaching. Would bringing married men into the priesthood cause a culture change within the priesthood that would discourage the Father Plushies from celebrating their diversity? I don't know. But I'd sure like to hear what orthodox Catholics and others have to say about it.
Please tell us what they say then, and where they say it so that we can look it up ourselves, because this is not something that is widely accepted as being true, even among Protestants.
The Son of God founded His Church BEFORE a single word of the New Testament was written. The New Testament is the Gospel of the Lord and also recounts the early history of His Church.
What precisely is YOUR concern? You ask for scriptural proof, this is the essense of Luther's false teaching.
"The Son of God founded His Church BEFORE a single word of the New Testament was written. The New Testament is the Gospel of the Lord and also recounts the early history of His Church."
And I agree with everything in this statement.
"You ask for scriptural proof, this is the essense of Luther's false teaching."
I just want the facts, from the Bible.
Wow, wanting scriptural proof of a belief is a false teaching?
Again, I am not Lutheran.
And that Babylonian Talmud. I guess it was written in some Jewish school on Long Island? And all those Jewish schools in the area, such as Pembeditha. Were they just 7-11s.? Josephus tells us that there were quite a lot of Jews there in the Babylonian area. Some could have been running Best Western hotels, I guess.
The Bible itself states that other things happened.
You believe that the Blessed Virgin had other children, yet this FALSEHOOD is found nowhere in scripture.
You believe that the Lord didn't found His Church on Peter's confession, though this FACT is in scripture.
I have never once seen you refer to the Blessed Virgin as "blessed," you merely call her Mary, even though the Bible implores you to do otherwise.
What about Mark 3 in re: physical brothers and sisters.
We believe that the foundation of the church is that of Peter's confession that Jesus is the messiah.
"The Bible itself states that other things happened."
I don't understand where you are going with this statement.
And as for "issues" (c'mon: "issues"?) --- if you're speaking of the sexual exploitation of children, that's way exceeded by abuse of children by teachers in the public schools:
"Sexual Abuse by Educators: Is Scrutinized: A draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education...estimates that millions of children are being affected by it during their school-age years.
"The scope of the problem appears to far exceed the priest abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, said Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report. The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape—at some point during their school-age years, Ms. Shakeshaft said. "So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.
Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
Significantly related to: adults having extensive access to children.
Not signficantly related to: celibacy.
Google "Charol Shakeshaft" or look HERE.
Cousins or close family members (possibly raised by the Holy Family), but they are NEVER referred to as sons or daughters of Saint Joseph or the Blessed Virgin Mary. James calls himself a "servant" of Christ in his epistle, Jude states the same and says that he is the brother of James -- neither declare themselves to be the Lord's brothers.
I'm glad that you accept that the Lord built His Church on Peter's confession, giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and continuing the Church based upon the Apostolic succession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Your false beliefs presuppose that something that is not contained in the Bible is untrue. The FACT that the Bible itself negates this possibility demonstrates its fallacy.
Irenaeus calls him the Father of All Heresies. All the great heretics from the Valentinians to the Marcionites to the Manicheans were followers of his and his heresies. His followers called themselves "Christians", so as to blend in with the real Christians in Rome and elsewhere and be indistinguishable.
The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Funk & Wagnall, 1910 states: "The 25 year episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome".
And the Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic Church states that "the author or first representative of this baptized heathenism . . . is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices with the aid and the sanction of Christianity [so-called] to set up a rival universal [catholic] religion".
I read Mark 3, did you? Mark 3 clearly states that Jesus is asked about his physical brother and mother and Jesus responds what about them.
I believe the Church is built upon Jesus Christ. Emphasis Jesus Christ.
"The FACT that the Bible itself negates this possibility demonstrates its fallacy."
Where does the Bible itself negate that it is the truth?
I believe the Church is built upon Jesus Christ.
No, Jesus said "on this Rock (Peter) I will build My Church." He did not say to Peter, "build My Church on Me."
"This possibility" refers to this:
"Your false beliefs presuppose that something that is not contained in the Bible is untrue."
Mark 3:31: "There came then his brethren..." So you are saying that the physical brethren in this scripture is physical to Mary, Jesus' mother, but not to him? Am I understanding you correctly?
No, it was Peter's confession that Jesus was the Messiah. That confession that Jesus is the Messiah is the rock upon which Jesus' church was built.
What belief do I have that is false?
You wrote:
“The burden of proof is on you to prove that Peter was not in Babylon as he wrote and that he meant something other than "Babylon" by the word "Babylon".”
Incorrect. The burden is all yours. What I have said is clearly what has always been believed. You are presenting the modernist view. The burden is entirely yours.
“Thanks for posting all of these quotes because it shows just how a myth grows from a little bush to a large tree.”
Trees grow from seeds. I proved there was a seed – in Rome. Your analogy even supports that point. Thanks for the assist.
IGNATIUS "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Where does he say that they were in Rome? Peter and the apostles gave commands at the Council of Jerusalem that affected Gentiles. He could be referring to that.”
If Peter and Paul commanded Romans then they were in Rome. I can’t believe missed that obvious point.
DIONYSIUS "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
“Dionysius [whoever he was?] loses his credibility when he indicates that Peter was involved in the planting of the church of Corinth. He was probably as involved with Corinth as he was with Rome.”
Which would mean it was his. You again miss the obvious. Just because we don’t have glaring evidence of something now does not mean a thing didn’t happen. That’s just common sense.
IRENAEUS "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
“Where was Irenaeus getting this from? He lists no sources. We know that Paul's letter in 56 AD was the first contact the church of Rome had with any apostle.”
We do? Where does Paul indicate he’s writing in AD 56? And how do you know Paul was the first Apostle to write to Rome?
“And Paul was not doing much "evangelizing" from his prison cell.”
Again, you miss the obvious. He certainly was doing “evangelizing” and how do you know it was always a cell? Sometimes he was on ship, on the road, in front of an official – and he was evangelizing every waking moment. Sometimes he even used words (as St. Francis said). Have you forgotten that he converted at least one of his guards? It is interesting to me how Protestants lose their memories in regard to the Bible when bashing Catholics or their beliefs.
“So just when were they together in Rome? doing this evangelizing together? This statement lacks credibility.”
No, you lack credibility. You seem to think St, Paul evangelized only when the situation seemed comfortable!!!
IRENAEUS "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).
“Neither of the apostles built up the church of Rome. Read Paul's letter. No apostle had been there, and yet it was a thriving church. Linus was mentioned by Paul, not Peter. Paul did not need Peter if he wanted to appoint Linus or anybody, but none of the apostles did any sort of appointing.”
Again, you miss the obvious. Paul did too build up the church in Rome as he did everywhere he went. Do you think he had no influence at all over those in Rome?
IRENAEUS "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
“This is just Irenaeus pontifications without evidence. Where are his citations from the writings of Peter or Paul?Surely something of this magnitude would be down on paper from these two apostles. And was the church of Rome more ancient than the church at Antioch and Jerusalem?”
You’ve got to be kidding. Where are Paul’s citations about his own actions in the NT? Oh, right, there aren’t any. It’s inspired so we trust it. With the Fathers we simply have no reason to doubt that Peter was in Rome. Irenaeus needs no citations. Yes, it probably was written down before him, but that doesn’t mean that text survived his time. Look at Eusebius. He cites numerous books which are now lost. Some were very rare already in his day!!! We both know you have nothing to go on. So, what do you do? You attack the fathers and their writings as if they should have been writing footnoted dissertations.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).
“So now where is Paul in this story.”
Doesn’t matter. We’re talking about Peter, remember? Can you focus here? Is that asking too much?
“He now gets written out by Clement who adds his own additions. Where did all that come from? Any citations?”
No citations. None are needed. We have no reason to believe he is inventing stories.
GAIUS "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).
“So now the mythmakers are reduced to citing the names on a gravemarker as evidence and some obscure person named Gaius who was alive 198 -- 217 AD --- 150 years later?”
Prove they are mythmakers. Any citations for that? LOL!!!
Seriously, it must suck to be you. I know that sounds snide, but I don’t even mean it that way. You wanted evidence. It was posted. You’re stumped so you whine the evidence isn’t up to your standards – as if any researcher would treat evidence that way in a case like this.
“And that is supposed to be credible evidence?”
It sure is. You can’t refute it can you? Post your evidence to the contrary. Got any? Any at all?
TERTULLIAN "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).
“So now Tertullian throws in "the passion like our Lord" without citing anyone before him.?”
Is that even necessary? You said ante-Nicene. Is Tertullian ante-Nicene or not? How about the Gospel of John? Is that a good enough source for you? Look up John 21:18-19. No, you won’t believe the stretching out of arms is about Peter’s crucifixion.
TERTULLIAN "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
“First Irenaeus tells us that Paul and Peter ordained Linus, now Tertullian tells us that it was Peter alone and that he ordained Clement instead? Don't you wish they could get their stories about this straight before writing it down?”
How are they contradicting each other? One sources mentions two, the other only one. The second source doesn’t say Paul WASN’T there. Are you saying the gospel writers couldn’t get their act together? Matthew says one angel was in the tomb. Mark says one man. Luke says two men, while John says two angels. Well, which is it? So God couldn’t His act together right? There are always differences in stories. These differences are not contradictions, however.
You’ve never had to do research have you?
THE LITTLE LABYRINTH "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:28:3).
“What happened to Paul? Irenaeus says that Linus was the first bishop not Peter? All of these writers tell different stories.”
Paul would not be part of that list since it is a list of succession. Didn’t that occur to you? No, of course not.
EUSEBIUS "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
“Here is a father of the church who forgets to mention that Peter was a pillar of the church in Jerusalem.”
Show that he “forgot”. More likely he chose not to mention it because it had nothing to do with that part of the story. You not only don’t know how to examine sources but you are insinuating your prejudice into them. That’s a great way to maintain ignorance, but it doesn’t help much in the learning process.
“Did he really establish the church in Antioch?”
Peter was the bishop of Antioch. See Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament, pp. 63-71.
“Where does he get this 25 years? ???”
It might have been common knowledge in his day. Is there an early written source that shows it. Not that I know of. Does that mean it is untrue? No.
LACTANTIUS "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome ...
“I thought it was 25 years beginning in 42 AD during the reign of Claudius. Lactantius and Eusebius should have compared notes before writing this. No one can seem to get their story straight.”
Lactantius may very well have gotten a detail wrong. He too talks of a 25 year period, but in a different way: “…and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord.”
I can easily see how Lactantius got a detail wrong.
Notice, however, that the 25 year period is still there. It is just related in a different way.
“There was a Peter there in Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD and his real name was Simon the Magician.”
So you trust the early Church fathers there, but not elsewhere? After all, this story is not in the Bible you know?
“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. It had bishops and they called themselves "Christians". Check Justin Martur and Irenaeus and other ante-Nicenes. The Catholic Church has confused Simon Peter with Simon Magus who was pretending to be Peter and deceived a lot of people both then and throughout history.”
No, you’re the only confused one here. We don’t mistake Simon Magus for St. Peter.
Thanks for proving you have no evidence for your claims and can’t overturn the evidence presented by me. Your assistance in this matter is much appreciated.
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.