Posted on 03/09/2010 12:13:22 PM PST by the invisib1e hand
Married or single priests from the early stages of Christianity practiced celibacy, according to a Vatican archaeologist.
During the first four centuries, married priests would renounce having intimate relationships with their wives, but they needed their the approval of their spouse.
L O L I am not the one that says that a priest or preacher cannot preach/teach if they are married. Which to be married by 'nature' indicates an act of intimacy occurs, now I can't imagine by what imagination or vanity messes with the minds to claim it was a 'sin' for Mary to be the literal wife of Joseph....
Jewish men at the time of Christ were required to celebrate every Sabbath with sexual intercourse. It is Jewish law.
http://www.jewishsexuality.com/the-holiness-of-marital-relations
Peter was a Jew. If his wife was still living, he would have been having regular weekly sexual intercourse with her.
Why do we always forget that Jesus and his disciples were strict Jews who obeyed Levitical laws?
“Married Priests Practiced Celibacy”
I can’t imagine that. Being married to someone, having sex and then BAM, they decide that neither of us are having sex....ever again. If you believe in a fidelity, you find yourelf in quite a pickle.
As comedian Ron White said, “You can’t NOT have sex with me, I’ll cheat. I know ‘cause I’ve seen me do it.” Now of course their are exceptions health reasons, etc.....but just because....? That’s a toughy.
The seven sins Gregory identified as “all the vices” (“Et quid per septem daemonia, nisi universa vitia designantur?”) by which he means the seven called cardinal sins (including lust, which was understood as inordinate or illicit sexual desire).
Gregory said that the ointment used by Mary Magdalen, to anoint Christ’s feet had previously been used by her “to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.” (“Liquet...quod ilicitus actibus prius mulier intenta unguentum sibi pro odore suae carnis adhibuit”)
“That’s some pretty impressive archaeology.”
Imagine how hard that rock had to be?
Wont work out well ya know
Okay, so I did skim read the whole homily. There ain’t nothing in it remotely resembling the quote your hack authority attributed to Gregory. The only place he speaks explicitly about desire is here:
In illis ergo cordibus Dominus requiescit, quae amor praesentis saeculi non incendit, quae carnis desideria non exurunt, quae incensa suis anxietatibus in hujus mundi concupiscentiis non arescunt. Unde et Mariae dicitur: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi (Luc. I, 35). Umbrosa ergo loca in meridie ad pascendum hinnulus quaerit, quia talibus mentibus Dominus pascitur, quae per respectum gratiae temperatae corporalibus desideriis non uruntur.
And it’s about good desire for God and not about sexual desire. The whole homily is about true repentance and longing for God. Gregory is the great Doctor desiderii, doctor of holy longing for God. The homily is full of the love poetry of the Song of Songs as expressing the soul’s longing for God. That’s “desire” in that homily.
Either your pseudo-authority scrambled his citation or you did.
Not if they were priests performing their temple service.
Yeah and there’s nothing in the New Testament about using grape juice in little plastic thimbles or about Gospel Rock or Sunday Schools either.
“590-604-Pope Gregory “the Great” said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself”
Pretty sure I just figgered out why when my ancestors came from Europe and looked for a new faith (they were jews) they chose Protestantism.
Maybe it was blue ...
SnakeDoc
“Yeah and there’s nothing in the New Testament about using grape juice in little plastic thimbles”
No but there is a good reason for it. Many churches have recovering alcoholics in attendance. You do not give these people booze.
“or about Gospel Rock”
If King David had had an electric guitar, he’d have used it when he was singing loudly and dancing for the Lord.
“Sunday Schools either”
Children should not be taught the Word. Okay then.
HA!
I get a kick out of all the protestant proof texters who forget where the bible came from and that the church existed for centuries without a bible.
Since they were taught sola scriptura though they think it has to be in the bible (given to us by the Catholic church) to be “real”.
What was going on those first centuries?
“Why do we always forget that Jesus and his disciples were strict Jews who obeyed Levitical laws?”
Because it doesn’t fit our template of who we want them to be?
Yeah, all that’s in the homily. BUT YOU LEFT SOMETHING OUT, NOW, DIDN’T YOU?
Here’s the Latin for the entire passage:
Liquet, fratres, quod illicitis actibus prius mulier intenta unguentum sibi pro odore suae carnis adhibuit. Quod ergo sibi turpiter exhibuerat, hoc jam Deo laudabiliter offerebat. Oculis terrena concupierat, sed hos jam per poenitentiam conterens flebat
Here’s what you quoted, with ellipsis:
her “to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.” (“Liquet...quod ilicitus actibus prius mulier intenta unguentum sibi pro odore suae carnis adhibuit”)
What follows “adhibuit”?
Quod ergo sibi turpiter exhibuerat, hoc jam Deo laudabiliter offerebat. Oculis terrena concupierat, sed hos jam per poenitentiam conterens flebat
Gregory goes on to say that “what she once in turpitude applied to herself, now she PRAISEWORTHILY offers to God. Once she disorderedly desired [concupierat] with earthly eyes, but now those eyes weep in grinding penitence.”
It’s easy to lie with selective quotations. What the specific passage says is not that sexual desire is always sinful but that any created thing can be used wrongly but also turned right around and used rightly.
Moreover, the whole thrust of the homily is the exact opposite of your “Gregory said all sexual desire is sinful.”
Gregory’s overall point is exactly Luke’s point: a woman known to have been a “loose woman” (fornicator) anointed Jesus’ feet. She had sinned sexually, Jesus says, and Gregory’s point is about how she had repented, loved Jesus greatly, and Jesus was merciful and loving to her, whereas the real villain is the Pharisees who condemned her.
IF ANYTHING IN GREGORY’S HOMILY COMES CLOSE TO WHAT YOUR hack source says it said (that all sexual desire is sinful) it would be the Pharisees. Jesus condemns the Pharisees for thinking that all sex is sinful. This woman sinned sexually, all sex is evil, ergo Jesus should let the woman touch him.
But that’s the PHARISEES. Gregory is saying that Jesus is saying that the PHARISEES are wrong to think that.
Your hack authority has, either knowingly or unknowingly, turned this homily on its head by attributed to Gregory the very idea that Gregory (and Jesus) condemns in the chapter that Gregory is preaching on. GREGORY SAYS THAT JESUS SAYS THAT SEXUAL SINS ARE NOT POLLUTING IN THEMSELVES. The Pharisees are the ones who say sexual sins are polluting.
And even the Pharisees, begin good Jews, did not say that all sexual desires are polluting. They were saying that this woman used sex wrongly, sinfully, not that all sex is sinful.
I don’t know where you are getting this garbage from, but whoever it is has turned it around 180 degrees from what the original source says.
>> The passage you quoted says not to refrain from sexual relations unilaterally (the “marriage debt”). But St. Paul goes on to make an exception: “except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again.”
That is correct.
>> The bishop’s (priests derived from bishops) life is to be one of prayer. This is the basis for the discipline that required arried bishops and priests to abstain from marital relations, by mutual consent, upon ordination.
The original poster ignored the “abstinence by mutual consent for fasting” portion of the passage ... but you seem to be ignoring the “and come together again” portion of the passage. What of the final indication that married couples should “come together again” (i.e. that no such fasts should be permanent)?
>> But I doubt I’ll convince you. Your mind is made up if you post something that undermines your own claim and don’t realize that it does.
Does the “and come together again” portion of the passage not undermine your claim that perpetual abstinence by mutual consent is acceptable?
SnakeDoc
There’s a reason why David insisted his men had not been with women before they were given the show-bread to eat - and they were going hungry!
No, it was a good joke. It was innocent and had no malice.
You wrote:
“Really? Now how much does it cost to annul a marriage so as to bless a marriage within the church.... Please don’t tell me it is ‘free’ of charge as I know different....”
It’s free if the person simply can’t pay the fees. You may not like the answer, but that’s the truth. I know someone who paid little or nothing for tha whole process. She simply had no money.
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.