Vatican Document Calls Celibacy Non-Negotiable

I have my armor on!!!

Bishop Schmitt of Wheeling-Charleston is our good bishop.

It is a false premise to state "all of the Apostles were married". My point was,there is no way,and I repeat,no way, that statement can be proven true. The gospels and the reat of New Testament scripture is silent as to the marital disposition of the individual Apostles.

I have never said that all of the apostles were married. I've gone no further than:

"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?" I Corinthians 9:5.

One might argue from this that all of the apostles were married, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were. Paul was arguing that apostles and other church leaders have the right to be married and to bring their wives with them on their travels. One could argue that the apostles who weren't married happened to be the ones who weren't traveling.
The Greek words are adelphen gunaika, which literally translates as "sister-wife." The word gunaika can mean "woman," but scholars -- both Protestant and Catholic -- consider "Christian wife" or "believing wife" to be the most contextually correct translation. All of the major modern Bible translations use the phrases "a Christian wife" or "a believing wife", including, the New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, and Today's English Version. To argue that the NAB Bible is a mistranslation would be to be on the wrong side of scholarship.
Other passages referring to the marriage of clergy those including the well-known Priscilla (or Prisca) and Aquila, who evidently functioned as a husband-wife missionary team. Also, we have these two passages:

"For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious." Titus 1:5-6
"This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?" First Letter of St. Paul to Timothy 3:1-5

It doesn't appear to me that the rest of the New Testament is silent on this issue, as you say.

If you want to continue this debate then you and I need to go down another path. I thought I was clear that going down the exact same path everyone has been going down always led to the same place. A place where I was firmly convinced that "celbacy" was the state most pleasing to God for those that would be responsible for carrying out the "Great Commission". You on the other hand,do not agree.

You have your belief, but can you back it from scripture? No. Can you back it from tradition? No.
Just because you are firmly convinced that celibacy is the state most pleasing to God doesn't make it so. Celibacy is a gift but it's no different than any other gift. God isn't displeased with those who don't have the gift of celibacy. The ability to sing is a wonderful gift but God isn't displeased with me because I can't sing -- it's just a gift that he hasn't given me.
I would still like you to address Book VII of Clement's Stromata that talks of Peter's wife thusly:

"They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, 'Remember thou the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them."

Your silence is deafening. As I said before, the writing is mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of Peter. Clement of Alexandria is officially recognized as a Father of the Church.

I believe that legitimate debate on issues we disagree on must start at a totally different place. To that end could you please tell me what you think the "Word" is?

The Word is Jesus Christ. I do hope we agree on that!

Glad you are open to Catholic tradition. Now perhaps you will consider reading the Proto-Gospel of St. James, which dates from the 2nd Century and tells about the immaculate conception of Mary and her perpetua virginity. It has a number of fantastical elements, so it never made the "cut" as savred scripture. But it shows that neither doctrine is the late invention that some believe.

You are right that many ex-Catholics don't know diddly squat about their former faith. Put that to their families or to
their teachers or to just plain indifference. Faith without knowledge quickly slips into superstition.

But I think you are missing a point about Peter's wife. You probably are not familiar with the concept of virginity in marriage. The injunction to multiply and fill the earth? Well, Christians often said that the world was full and that its end was coming. Large families were not favored by the Church Fathers. This attitude is not only medieval; it can be traced to the early years of the Church.

Celibacy allows a freedom of personal action that marriage does not.Fewer children allow for the better nurture of the ones you have. Modern feminism has an approach some what like that. Some feminists think that the world is coming to an end, that the earth is overloaded. or whatever. The difference between them and early Christians is that the Christians thought of virginity as a virtue and a superior way to Christian perfection. Feminists think of virginity as a vice and an impediment to personal fulfillment. Marriage is not just an inferior way of life but a trap to be avoided. Birth control is an imperative, and abortion a necessary way to get out. Early Christians opposed both, of course, but in each case the single life is preferred. although to very different ends. Anyway. early Christians thought: Christ is coming, be prepared, do not be caught up in the ordinary course of life. The way of Mary is to be preferred over the way of Martha.

What do you think, Sinkspur? Is it worth trying to reason with these people to bring them out of superstition and into a walk with the one true God?

Facts are facts, and you have done an outstanding job of presenting facts.

Celibacy is certainly biblical, but there is nothing biblical about mandatory celibacy. That is a discipline of the Church, enforced under penalty of sin only for the last 1000 years.

Some Catholics hang on to mandatory celibacy for priests for a variety of reasons; some are good, most aren't.

But, the bottom line is, celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, and Catholics are free to disagree with it, or accept it. But nobody can shut them up about it, as one of the more juvenile Catholic posters on this thread tried to do to you and me.

The Church is free to impose celibacy on whomever it wants, but it should not be surprised if it doesn't get the response from Catholic men to the priesthood that it got fifty years ago.

WHY was marriage OK for priest until 1080 when priest were forced to divorce their wives---what about the concubibes afterwards and illegitimate children afterwards fathered by POPES,BISHOPS ,and PRIESTS

Believe me there were lots of bastards begot by clergy before 1080. Pope Gregory was trying to put the lid on a tendency to make the priesthood hereditary like the levitical priesthood. The danger was that in a feudal society such a priesthood would become part of the nobility. SAs it was the higher ranks of the Church were often filled by the younger sons of the nobility. The Albigensian and Waldensian movement were both fed by public revulsion at the worldiness of the Catholic clergy. The Dominican and Franciscan movement were Catholic reactions to the same thing.

You and RobbyS are being far more patient with this troll than I could. Best wishes, but St. Jude may encounter exhaustion before this bloke, DalMi gets it.

Yes, I am exhausted on this subject. I still don't understand why we can't mind our own Church and leave them to mind theirs. It seems that Protestants spend a lot of time trying to disprove the Catholic Church. But, from my experience, Catholics are more focused on themselves than talking about Protestant ways. I was not even aware of many of the differences between us until a few years ago. Catholics seem always to be on the defensive and it's unfortunate that many Catholics and ex-Catholics don't have a good education of their faith.

Also, we can't even agree which sources to base our conclusions on, so of course our conclusions will not be the same!

p.s. Can any faithful Catholic imagine a new single priest who starts at the Church and then has to look for dates in the congregation??? Priests have enough to worry about without worrying about their dating life and then later their wives and families.

Can any faithful Catholic imagine a new single priest who starts at the Church and then has to look for dates in the congregation??? Priests have enough to worry about without worrying about their dating life and then later their wives and families.

The discussion, I believe, centered on married men becoming priests, not on celibate priests marrying.

The Eastern Rite model would serve the Latin Rite well, where married men may become priests, but nobody marries after ordination.

It works pretty well. The clergy are more approachable, are less likely to get involved in little power games in order to advance (since they can't), and it is not only a motivator, but really ties them to their parishes in terms of their conduct.

That long term tie to parishes also makes them less subservient to their hierarchs, and the Bishops are less likely to interfere or transfer them as a result. Sure, salaries are somewhat higher, decent rectories must be provided - but at the same time, the parish also gets a full-time assistant with the wife at little to no expense.

My inclination would be to let the eastern rites expand. There seems to be much oppostion to this. I hate the idea of starting de novo. The Eastern rites already have cultural models for married priest. I am tired of all the experimention. It is too damned much like the public schools, in where constant change always ending up where we started, except that only the oldest teachers remember.

Yes, I am exhausted on this subject. I still don't understand why we can't mind our own Church and leave them to mind theirs.

You think you're exhausted -- I've spent my time arguing with brick walls who are proud of being brick walls over the past week. And that's putting it nicely.
The priest sex abuse scandals have eliminated, probably forever, the "why we can't mind our own Church and leave them to mind theirs" way of thinking. This is a Christian problem now, not just a Catholic issue. Maybe it's because one of the first prominent scandals, with Fr. Rudy Kos, happened here in Dallas, or maybe because a group of prominent Dallas Catholics has banded together to force Bishop Graumann to resign, but hardly a day goes by in Dallas without hearing about it in the news.
Further, Paul said that if we find a brother in error we need to tell him about it. Well, this is huge error and it's going to continue to be a problem until the root causes are addressed. One of the root causes is the adherence to an almost 1,000-year standard of enforced priestly celibacy that has no biblical or historical basis. That's not to say that sexual abuse is unknown amongst Protestants. It happens with us, too, and Protestants need to be just as ruthless in rooting it out as do Catholics.

Your silence is deafening.

And,your word waterfall is blinding.

The Word is Jesus Christ. I hope we agree on that.

We do agree,Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.Can you tell me what that means to you? That may be our point of departure.

And, your word waterfall is blinding

Maybe it made you think. And if not now, then perhaps someday.

We do agree,Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.Can you tell me what that means to you? That may be our point of departure.

Probably not too much of a departure, unless you're enthusiastic about Mariology and the Treasury of Merit. I agree with the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed.

Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. He is eternally co-existent with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He is wholly God and wholly man. When Christ became man, he did not cease being man -- to paraphrase Athanasius: in the incarnation we do not have the subtraction of deity but the addition of humanity.
Jesus was crucified for our sins and on the third day rose from the grave. He made numerous appearances to the apostles, his family, and once to 500 people before ascending back into heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge those who remain alive and those who have died. Those who believe in Him will reign with him forever.
Salvation is by God's grace, through faith alone in Christ alone, and the kind of faith that produces salvation is the kind of faith that produces good works. The good works don't produce salvation in and of themselves, but are evidence of a saving faith. Works are not a condition of our salvation, but a consequence of it. If we believe in Jesus, He alone will impute upon us a forgiveness of sins, He will cover our sins with His one perfect sacrifice.

So they said to him, "What can we do to accomplish the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." (John 6:28-29)
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. (John 3:16)
Happy is the sinner whose fault is removed, whose sin is forgiven. Happy are those to whom the LORD imputes no guilt, in whose spirit is no deceit. (Psalm 32:1-2)
And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ (n.b. -- not through a Treasury of Merit) and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5: 18-19)
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. (James 2:18)

Jesus Christ is the one sacrifice for all times:

But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated. (Hebrews 10:12-14)

Jesus Christ is the one mediator (not a co-mediator with Mary) between humans and God the Father:

For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

Now he has obtained so much more excellent a ministry as he is mediator of a better covenant, enacted on better promises. (Hebrews 8:6)
For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:15)

Thankyou. I see that what you say does include much of what I believe about Jesus Christ.It may be that what I believe is more complex and all encompassing than what you mean by the same words.

Additionally,I guess,I just think the disconnect between the religious beliefs of the original "Chosen" of God and the post-reformation more "enlightened" religions is too great to reconcile.

Maybe it comes from the fact that I find a lot in Paul that I have difficulty with given what Jesus had to say,and I do believe that Jesus is the source of what we as Christians must believe.

For example,you cited Hebrews 10:12-14 For by one offering He has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.

Yet when I read Matthew 19:21If thou wilt be perfect,go sell what you have and give to the poor.

Again,it may be that you can reconcile the two passages,but I believe that everything Jesus said while He walked with us must be understood to apply to those who believe in Him.

I hope you understand that I am very concerned about the scandals in the Church Christ established,but I believe the answer lies in the Church following the Scriptures,Traditions and the Pope and Magisterium which they don't seem to be doing very successfully these days. If I had not been exposed to the fullness of Truth,I would be more apt to accept what I interpret scripture to mean. But I know what the Church teaches and I can see that it is good,beautiful and true,and does require works,which of course,without faith are of little value in attaining life everlasting.

I am sorry I can't convince you that the Catholic Church is the one,true church;however,I do respect your zealousness and desire to have all please God,as you see and understand Him.