Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
If you read Hebrews 10, it says nothing of the sort.
If you wish, I can post it again.
You make no reply to the postings of the Eucharist except to dismiss it as mere mechanics. I agree that ecumenism is impossible when huge swathes of Christianity are merely swept aside as insignificant, and the whole concept of the loving God is replaced by a malevolent brooding sadist.
WCF
Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]
[1] GEN 3:13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 2CO 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
[2] ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Even your Confession doesn’t make sense. Notice that footnote 2 says “that he might have mercy upon all” and not “have mercy upon the elect” or some such. The verse starts out with the declaration that God was pleased that Adam and Eve sinned (with death and damnation to follow man ever after) because that somehow gives glory to Him. Then it says that He might have mercy upon all (not He, just he) which seems to get lost in the shuffle.
Your Calvinistic god surpasses John Milton’s satan; your god is more bloodthirsty and sadistic.
Yes, I know. You guys are good at this; it must be quite an exercise. We give you the fulfillment of the Word of God - the Gospels - and you give us out of context Isaiah.
You keep on giving OT verses that cannot possibly be interpreted as they are if one considers them the unfulfilled Word of God. Jesus has fulfilled the Law and given us the Gospels. I keep hearing that you consider all the Bible as equally relevant and equally as important.
I’ve asked if the list of begets in the OT is as important as the Sermon on the Mount or any other word out of the mouth of Jesus and no Reformed will answer directly.
The Sacrifice is complete and whole. We have the Sacrament of the Eucharist in remembrance of Him often and with great reverence. You guys sneer and scoff at the Eucharist, yet you have no problem with some invisible indwelling Spirit that hijacks you, turns you into a robot slave complete with Stockholm Syndrome and you get to parrot praise verses to a brooding and malevolent god as if you could mean them forever.
It’s odd that in the duelling verses that cross (!) posts, it is the Catholics that continuously post the Gospels. Why are you afraid of them? Why do the Reformed claim that St. Paul set the doctrine for Christianity? Why do we even need the Gospels anyway?
There is a flip side in all of this that our Arminian brethren fail to recognize. It isn't just that God chooses some over others. The scriptures in many places talk about God hardening the hearts of those who He so will. We know that God purposely and deliberately hardened the heart of Pharaoh, of the Jews, Herod and many others. One of the NT text that Paul talks about this is in Romans where God has brought about a partial hardening of the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in. If it was truly God's desire to bring all men to repentance, then one has to wonder why God would harden and darken people's hearts?
God continuously calls and pity man but man will never come. God redeems man from circumstance after circumstance but they will not come. Man's response is to continuously rebel and vex the Holy Spirit. If it was not for God grace and mercy none would be saved.
Our Arminian friends can argue until the cows come home against God choosing some over others, but they have no explanation as to the hardening of the heart; except perhaps to say that it was really man who did this and God just let it happened. So, accordingly, man chooses to follow God or man chooses to harden his own heart knowing that hell awaits. But it is all man, not God, that does the saving. God only "inspires". The atonement is something for everyone and justification is simply doing something for God. In the end, if God does not choose or harden the hearts of men, one ends up with a God that has little participation in mankind.
Instead, I see a God who is deeply involved in the affairs of man, atoning for our sins, ensuring our sanctification, protecting and nurturing us, and guiding our paths towards our glorification. We are His sheep of His pastures.
Sigh. The Jews had revelation. Jesus Himself was full revelation.
One of the problems that we have in our debates is the countering of direct quotes from Jesus with Reformed quotation of out of context verses from Paul or Isaiah.
What if the woman is taking chemo?
Yeah, once-in the past. :O)
Hey, it's early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee. What do you expect? Wait until this afternoon and then I'll think of another excuse.
Do you allow your Bishops to marry and, if not, why not?
We consider that you guys have replaced the Gospels with St. Paul’s epistles. That was the reasoning behind the idea of calling the Reformed Paulines, rather than Christians - because of the seeming insistence that Paul, not Jesus, is the central focus of the Bible.
So prayer calms the believer. That, it does. But you also said that it allows us to make our petitions. I have been lectured at length that Reformed petitions are useless because God does not change His mind and everything is foreordained. This statement makes no sense.
In your post 8515, you said that “God does not tell us who is elect and who is not.” In your last post you said that “God does tell us; through his word and by his spirit.” How can both statements be true?
If the elect are going to be elected no matter what anyone does, then why should I, if elected, go to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ? They’re going to heaven anyway, no matter what I do.
Another question arises: can only the elect spread the Gospel?
You said: “We are saved from our sins, but not saved from sinning this side of heaven. So that in our sanctification we must still humble ourselves and repent of sin. God requires a humble and contrite heart. This happens when we acknowledge our sin.” What happens if you don’t? I keep getting conflicting answers about the moment of salvation. Are you saved or are you not?
“How can someone non elect be a believer? They can be a potential believer. Hence the need to proclaim the gospel” A potential believer? Have you read the WCF? There are no potential Reformed believers. There is the elect and there is the non elect, and never the twain shall meet.
The Catholic Church corrupted no theology. The Reformation resurrected a number of old heresies and took several to new heights. They also directly showed and emphasized the personal interpretation of Scripture, and removed swathes of Scripture that directly contradicted their own personal theologies. None of the Reformers were pure; none of their beliefs were pure; none of their actions were pure. Calvin’s theocratic reign of terror in Geneva reflects the heart and soul of the man.
Please go back and reread the posts to me. We give you Gospels and you give us other verses cherry picked from anywhere that even remotely might support the Reformed position.
More importantly, they have an idolatrous relationship with their own interpretation of the Bible, which is not far removed from self worship.
Well, here’s a hard pressed Catholic with a small essay on celibacy and the priesthood from Catholic.com.
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of “Catholic inventions” (a popular literary form) assign “mandatory priestly celibacy” to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
Another, quite different Fundamentalist confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even “unnatural.” Every man, it is claimed, must obey the biblical injunction to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28); and Paul commands that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). It is even argued that celibacy somehow “causes,” or at least correlates with higher incidence of, illicit sexual behavior or perversion.
All of this is false. Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).
It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom”:
“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).
Notice that this sort of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were “not really called” to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. “Be fruitful and multiply” is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.
Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
Yet none of these passages give us an example of humanly mandated celibacy. Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, but it was from the Lord. Paul’s remark to Timothy about “civilian pursuits” is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: “I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35).
This brings us to Fundamentalism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who “forbid marriage.”
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.
But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (5:11–12).
This “first pledge” broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.
Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against “forbidding to marry.” The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists.
Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.
In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.
Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.
Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30).
Oh, we recognize Calvin all right. He is in fine company, each contibuting more to theology than the one before, beginning with Arius.
While the potential for this is greater among the non RC churches, because they are decentralized in structure, these problems are ultimately corrected because we rely on SCRIPTURE as the measure for all doctrine. The reason many of the protestant churches are in upheaval is the homosexual movement that wants churches to ignore SCRIPTURE. Bible believing Christians are attempting to stop this trend within their churches, or they are leaving and creating new Bible based churches. It's a messy process, but in the end it will work out.
However, in a hierarchy mono bishophric system such as the RCC any doctrine can be introduced and the congregation is compelled to accept it, even if it has no foundation in SCRIPTURE.
How so?
You have been very straightforward in saying that most of the history in the OT are just stories meant to teach us something and that a lot of Paul's writings are contradictory and suspect. Therefore, I understand how you don't have the same degree of respect for Scripture as we do, but how is believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of GOD idolatrous?
I have never seen Bible believing Christians in any church pray to statues of the Bible, or expect miracles by touching it's image, or pray to perceived images of it in the sky.
I doubt if I would make this claim given all the pedophile priests the Church is dealing with today.
None of your claims in your article ring true to my argument. I'm certainly in agreement with Paul who felt it was better to be celebrant simply because as an individual you are freer to pick up and go. You don't have to worry all the worldly trappings like getting the kids through college, how you're going to support a household, or how to pay for the orthodontist. Those aren't my point. Instead I would suggest that it is legalistic to tell another person what they should or should not do; much like the Galatians telling people to be circumcised. If priests want to get married then fine as long as they understand the problems it will cause.
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them.
Let's be honest, there are a number of priests who would like to get married and the Church refuses to let them. If they were to do so they would be booted out of the priesthood Eastern cardinal sees problems with married priests. It's hard to make a case that priests really and truly want to "renounce" marriage when you have groups of them picketing the Vatican saying they wish to get married, others leaving, and still others accosting altar boys.
The argument that Protestants infused with the Holy Spirit have Him as a guide and therefore are qualified to interpret Scripture also follows to the entity of the Church, does it not?
Doctrine comes from the Vatican, not each area bishop. The system is monolithic, as you have noted, and while certain freedoms intended to be more cultural are given to each diocese, this is not extended to doctrine.
MB: “But every huckster with a new angle on a new assortment of verse culled from any corner of the Bible can hang up a shingle or put up a tent and tithe the rubes.”
WMF: “While the potential for this is greater among the non RC churches, because they are decentralized in structure, these problems are ultimately corrected because we rely on SCRIPTURE as the measure for all doctrine.”
Can you give me some examples? There are heretical churches that have been around since Restoration, or even Reformation times that appear to be flourishing. There have been many who failed, but there are many who haven’t. I would be interested on the correction process since it appears that the errors of the Reformation have been compounded in the Restoration, and geometrically compounded during the 20th Century cultic expansion.
It very clearly says that the practice of celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine. Same as eating fish rather than meat on Fridays during Lent. For a Protestant, a discipline might be attending services at a set time on Sunday or Wednesday evenings, and removing one’s hat upon entering.
Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it’s difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described. The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence (Fred Berlin, “Compulsive Sexual Behaviors” in Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, “Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders” in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O’Leary, “Homosexuality and Abuse”).
Some people — including a few vocal dissenting Catholics — are exploiting this crisis to draw attention to their own agendas. Some are demanding a married Catholic clergy in response to the scandal, as if marriage would make men stop hurting children. This flies in the face of the aforementioned statistic that married men are just as likely to abuse children as celibate priests (Jenkins, Pedophilia and Priests).
Since neither being Catholic nor being celibate predisposes a person to develop pedophilia, a married clergy wouldn’t solve the problem (”Doctors call for pedophilia research,” The Hartford Currant, March 23). One has only to look at similar crises in other denominations and professions to see this.
The plain fact is, healthy heterosexual men have never been known to develop erotic attractions to children as a result of abstinence.
In the Western Catholic Church, celibacy became universally practiced in the 4th century, beginning with St. Augustine’s adoption of the monastic discipline for all of his priests. In addition to the many practical reasons for this discipline — it was supposed to discourage nepotism — the celibate lifestyle allowed priests to be more independent and available. This ideal also called diocesan priests to live out the same witness as their brothers in monastic life. The Church hasn’t changed her directives for celibacy, because over the centuries she has realized the practical and spiritual value of the practice (Pope Paul VI, On the Celibacy of the Priesthood;, Encyclical letter, 1967). Indeed, even in the Eastern Catholic Church — which includes a married clergy — the bishops are chosen only from unmarried priests.
Christ revealed the true value and meaning of celibacy. Catholic priests from St. Paul to the present have imitated Him in their total gift of self to God and others as celibates. Although Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament that reveals the love and life of the Trinity, He was also a living witness to the life of the world to come. The celibate priesthood is for us a living witness to this life in which the unity and joy of marriage between a man and a woman is surpassed in the perfect, loving communion with God. Celibacy properly understood and lived frees a person to love and serve others as Christ did.
We have some married priests in the West, just not many of them. For the last 1700 years, we have observed that unmarried priests tend to have more time to devote to God than do married ones. It’d be a tough marriage, given what is required of our priests today.
We have renegade Catholics today, as we have had over the centuries. Don’t forget the first millennium heretics, as well as Calvin and Luther. They exist today as well. They are only after their own ends, practicing their own hubris, pride and self-importance. They put themselves before God. They have free will and are practicing it.
A discipline that is required by Church law to me is not a discipline.
..In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children...The plain fact is, healthy heterosexual men have never been known to develop erotic attractions to children as a result of abstinence.
Your statement is at odds with itself.
I'm not arguing what celibacy does or does not do. I don't think there is a need for everyone to get married nor do I think it's unhealthy if someone decides that he/she would like to stay single. I simply saying that if Father Joe feels he would like to get married then that doesn't make him less disciplined than Father Sam. According to Paul, Father Joe will have more worldly trouble and he should consider that fact and what it will mean to his ministry. But it may also be beneficial in other ways.
btw-I certainly won't bash Catholics for priests that abuse kids. I will bash an organization that ignores, minimizes and willfully fails in protecting others by harboring ministers or priests by shuffling them around when trouble starts.
"Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.
Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.
All Christian denominations — whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Reformed Protestants — agree on the essential core.
Which of the above mentioned doctrines do you think the so-called, by you, Reformed Paulines have removed? Who was the center piece of Paul's teaching? I will gladly follow Paul who follows Jesus Christ. Why does it have to be either/or to you? All that Paul wrote was under inspiration, therefore Jesus wrote through Paul. Every word Paul wrote is the gospel of Jesus.
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.