Posted on 06/14/2002 10:21:48 AM PDT by Polycarp
Despite his slant toward celibacy, the Apostle Paul recognized marriage as being perfectly in line with the Christian lifestyle. He writes, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Earthly marriage between a man and a woman has always been looked upon as being representative of Christ's relationship with the church. To say that marriage has absolutely no place in the priesthood is to read something into Scripture that just isn't there.
Nowhere in Scripture will you find that the clergy are commanded to be celibate. That is strictly an invention of the Catholic Church. Members of the clergy are expected to be sexually pure, and I believe that a healthy sexual relationship within the confines of marriage definitely figures into that.
If a man believes that God has called him to a celibate lifestyle, more power to him. But if he believes he is called to a life of wedded companionship in his service for the Lord, it seems unfair that his usefulness as a priest would be so casually dismissed. Those who have been covered by the blood of the Lamb are all priests (1 Peter 2:9) and saints (1 Corinthians 1:2) in the eyes of God, and I believe that a healthy marriage, even among the clergy, is pleasing in God's sight. To say that marriage has no place in the priesthood of the Catholic Church is to say that God was foolish for instituting marriage in the first place.
So, once again, it appears that the Church has to decide which is more important, Catholic tradition or Holy Scripture. Firstly, there is no command for anyone to avoid marriage and live a celibate lifestyle. Secondly, a healthy marriage relationship among the clergy is actually encouraged (1 Timothy 3). Why is that so difficult for some to accept?
It seems like you are refering to the infallibility of the pope. You will use the 'argument' found in Matt. 16:18 to establish the office of the Pope. 'Peter' (in Greek 'petros' meaning pebble) and rock (in Greek 'petra' meaning solid rock) are confused by the RCC, I believe. In v. 17, Jesus describes how Peter's confession of faith in v. 16 was revealed to him miraculously by His Father in heaven. "On this rock..." does not imply that Peter holds the office of Pope, but it simply means that on this pebble of faith (Peter), Christ will build his church. It is not by tradition, human office, or human rules that Christ will build His church, but on faith. The RCC throughout its history uses tradition and rules to govern their worshipers, but truly, Christ governs His believers in the true Church by faith, brought about by the miraculous work of the Spirit.
And, in some perverted way, I think this is how gay priests justify what they do. Heck, its not like they are doing something *really* bad like getting married. They are just having some fun with boys. Its no big deal---in fact, it doesn't even qualify as "sex" under Clinton standards.
Do you mean the organization that has a "Holy Father" who lives on earth somewhere in Italy in spite of Jesus' plain command to give no mere man the lofty title that belongs only to God?
St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his *obliged*, but his *beloved*, sons, 1 Co. 4:14.
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jesus warned his disciples against the elite class of "professional interpreters" of Scripture and tradition who loved pretentious titles and positions of influence.
Scripture indicates that church officers were chosen by the whole congregation, and that final governing authority in NT churches rests with the whole church.
The reasoning behind that is that [1] accountability to the congregation provides a safeguard against temptations to sin. [2] some degree of control by the entire congregation provides a safeguard against the leadership falling into doctrinal error. [3] government works best with the consent of those governed.
In addition to those, there is another reason for restricting the authority of church officers [4] the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture and the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (the regenerate).
The NT affirms that all regenerate Christians have access to God's throne in prayer and all share as members in a "royal priesthood".
[1 Pet.2:9; cf. Heb. 10:19-25; 12:22-24] show that all Christians have some ability to interpret Scripture and some responsibility to seek God's wisdom in applying it to situations. All have access directly to God in order to seek to know his will.
The NT allows for no special class of Christians who have greater access to God than others. Therefore it is right to include all believers in some of the crucial decision-making processes of the church. "In an abundance of counselors there is safety." [Prov.11:14]
When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of limited government that America's Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.] And Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].
Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)
The apostles had the unique authority to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture. In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead and had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.
In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church. Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles. In fact it was not the Jerusalem apostles who ordained Paul and Barnabas, but people in the church at Antioch who laid hands on them and sent them out. [Acts 13:3] Ordaining is ultimately from the Lord, himself [Acts 20:28; 1Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11].
(Some of my comments about church government above were partially derived or paraphrased from Wayne Grudem's book on Systematic Theology Copyright 1994)
Here is more from Matthew Henry's Commentary (on-line) linked from the Blue Letter Bible website [snips]:
"Matt. 8–10. It is repeated twice; Be not called Rabbi, neither be ye called Master or Guide: not that it is unlawful to give civil respect to those that are over us in the Lord, nay, it is an instance of the honour and esteem which it is our duty to show them; but, 1. Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master, by way of distinction from other people; it is not agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel, for them to covet or accept the honour which they have that are in kings’ palaces. 2. They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names; they must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience. The reasons for this prohibition are,
(1.) One is your Master, even Christ, v. 8, and again, v. 10. Note,
[1.] Christ is our Master, our Teacher, our Guide. Mr. George Herbert, when he named the name of Christ, usually added, My Master.
[2.] Christ only is our Master, ministers are but ushers in the school. Christ only is the Master, the great Prophet, whom we must hear, and be ruled and overruled by; whose word must be an oracle and a law to us; Verily I say unto you, must be enough to us.
And if he only be our Master, then for his ministers to set up for dictators, and to pretend to a supremacy and an infallibility, is a daring usurpation of that honour of Christ which he will not give to another.
(2.) All ye are brethren. Ministers are brethren not only to one another, but to the people; and therefore it ill becomes them to be masters, when there are none for them to master it over but their brethren; yea, and we are all younger brethren, otherwise the eldest might claim an excellency of dignity and power, Gen. 49:3. But, to preclude that, Christ himself is the first-born among many brethren, Rom. 8:29. Ye are brethren, as ye are all disciples of the same Master. School-fellows are brethren, and, as such, should help one another in getting their lesson; but it will by no means be allowed that one of the scholars step into the master’s seat, and give law to the school. If we are all brethren, we must not be many masters. Jam. 3:1.
Secondly, They are forbidden to ascribe such titles to others (v. 9); "Call no man your father upon the earth; constitute no man the father of your religion, that is, the founder, author, director, and governor, of it.’’
The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them reverence; but God only must be allowed as the Father of our spirits, Heb. 12:9.
Our religion must not be derived from, or made to depend upon, any man. We are born again to the spiritual and divine life, not of corruptible seed, but by the word of God; not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. Now the will of man, not being the rise of our religion, must not be the rule of it. We must not jurare in verba magistri—swear to the dictates of any creature, not the wisest or best, nor pin our faith on any man’s. St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his obliged, but his beloved, sons, 1 Co. 4:14.
The reason given is, One is your Father, who is in heaven. God is our Father, and is All in all in our religion. He is the Fountain of it, and its Founder; the Life of it, and its Lord; from whom alone, as the Original, our spiritual life is derived, and on whom it depends.
He is the Father of all lights (Jam. 1:17), that one Father, from whom are all things, and we in him, Eph. 4:6.
Christ having taught us to say, Our Father, who art in heaven; let us call no man Father upon earth; no man, because man is a worm, and the son of man is a worm, hewn out of the same rock with us; especially not upon earth, for man upon earth is a sinful worm; there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, and therefore no one is fit to be called Father.~~~~
I appreciate very much your sharing with me your exhaustive comments and interpretations regarding Scripture, church government, and other topics.
Though some of your interpretations appear plausible, I disagree with pretty much all of them. Pardon me if I don't take the time to dispute each point.
Frankly, I just don't find your interpretations anywhere near as compelling as Catholic teaching. However, should you be able to cite the source of your authority to infallibly interpret Scripture, and should I see that you have that infallible authority, I shall give your interpretations greater weight in the future.
Fraternally in the faith in Christ we share,
God told His people to be fruitful and multiply, now if this celibacy was practiced universally in a short time there would be no people.
I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, AS A CHILD, with no real choice (as are most people of most religions, I suspect.) As an adult, I question the process and validity. Surely God doesn't punish little children souls for sins they didn't understand, yet how will he value faith based on rote and ignorance ?
Well, now, I need to qualify that. It is described in Scripture.
That would be 1 Timothy 4:1-3.
The Catholic Church allowed married priests at one time. They based that on Scripture. Now you reject that Scripture. If the Church begins ordaining married men, will you drop your opposition to married priests? I think you need to consider this since a new Pope is just around the corner.
I don't recall Jesus ever mentioning the marital status of his followers. And Jesus was not simply a church leader. He is the Risen Son of God. God with us.
Just for you, I'll repeat it only once more. You are now misquoting Scriptures. It isn't "must be the husband of one wife", but "must be the husband of but one wife".
As the overwhelming majority of Christians believe this to be an upper limit on the number of wives (whether in total or concurrently - depends on who you ask), and not a requirement to be married, your assertion that your interpretation is correct is not only, at this point, unsupported, but also largely unbelieved by professed Christians throughout the world.
A bare assertion isn't even an argument. And even if you were able to muster an argument for your assertion, you still haven't told me the source of your peculiar authority to interpret Scripture.
Thanks for all your efforts,
sitetest
No matter what this new book says, the scriptures plainly and emphatically support the idea that clergy may be married if they choose, and early church history supports it as well. If it comes down to believing what a 20th-century priest says or what the Bible says, I'll go for the Bible every time. For example, we know that Peter was married:
And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. - MATTHEW 8:14Further, we know that other apostles -- and Jesus's brothers -- were also married. Paul indeed speaks out against clergy being forbidden to marry:
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? - 1 CORINTHIANS 9:5Finally, Paul says that clergy member holding high office may (not necessarily must) be married:
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) - 1 TIMOTHY 3:1-5The notion of celibacy for clergy was not codified until the 1st Lateran Council in 1123, under Pope Callistus. If celibacy is a requirement of priesthood that is supposedly handed down by apostolic tradition, then why did it take over 1100 to recognize this requirement?
Enforced celibacy for clergy is a 900-year old failed experiment. It's time to quit arguing whether or not zero-tolerance is a good idea and get back to what the scriptures say.
So are you saying that Protestants are in league with the devil?
My, what a tiny little mind you have.
Some of them. Not all of them. Just those who attack Christ's Church.
My, what a tiny little mind you have.
LOL. God Bless!
And just who in the H-!! are you to judge anyone's faith as based solely on rote and ignorance???
The most ignorant posters I've ever seen on Free Republic are the anti-Catholic bigots, who simply regurgitate the same old BS and misinterpretation of scripture and revisionist history time after time after time. Frankly, the bigots make asses of themselves in their ignorance of Catholic teaching and historical, apostolic Christian understanding of scripture.
Which authority? The authority of Paul who, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 says that apostles have the same right as any man to have a wife? Or the authority of the Lateran Council in 1123 that all of a sudden decided that Peter, Paul, and the rest of the apostles weren't really right after all? The authority whose popes and councils supported the selling of indulgences or the one that doesn't? The authority whose early writings refer to the the physical half-siblings of Jesus (and their descendants) or the one who now claims that Mary was a perpetual virgin?
You really need to study your history before you go hullaballoing about some supposed never-changing authority.
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.