Posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by NYer
First, this is the teaching on celibate clergy. The Church considers priesthood compatible in certan combinations with marriage. The Latin Particular Church of the Catholic Church indeed would not ordain a married man absent a special dispensation. Other Catholic Churches (most Eastern rites) do routinely ordain married man, subject to some restrictions. Orthodox Churches have valid priesthood and they, too, routinely ordain married men subject to some restrictions. So we are not talking of some blanket prohibition of married priests, but rather what is known as a "discipline", a rule that the local or particular Church might impose because it considers it beneficial for the task of guiding the flock to salvation.
I go into this because we are all aware of verses that warn about prohibiting people to marry, the fact that Peter was at least at some point in his life married, the historical fact of early clergy being often married, etc. We also are aware of the fact that St. Paul suggests that a Christian bishop be a "husband of one wife". None of that invalidates the desire, especially in the Latin Church, developed in the Middle Ages, to offer the flock that particular gift, of a celibate priest.
Why is it desirable? The Church teaches that a priest is one who in his sacramental duty is sent by Christ and is seen by the flock as Christ:
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20, describing a priest as one absolving or retaining sin as Christ Himself)19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22, describing that the priests starting with the Apostles are to do what Christ did, offer His Body and Blood; that is what makes them priests, -- they offer sacrifice).
He that heareth you, heareth me (Luke 10:26)
be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16 , later repeated, -- here we have the teaching authority of Christ passing on to His priests)
So you have the idea: priests are to the flock what Christ was to the Church: confessors, martyrs and reachers.
But Christ was celibate. Also, martyrdom is a gift that not everyone can give. The Church was blessed by centuries of tranquillity where opportunity for martyrdom was limited, although now that has ended. Celibacy is a gift everyone can give. It is the most natural form of denial of self we have.
I do not have to give you scriptural commendation of self denial, in imitation of Christ -- they are too numerous and will take us on a tangent.
Further, Christ is described as the Bridegroom of the Church. Ah, this is why He was celibate, -- He, too, was a "husband of own wife", His glorious umblemished Church:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it (Ephesians 5:25 see the entire chapter for an elaborated parallel between marriage and Christ's love for His Church; see also the parable of wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25)So to imitate Christ better a priest is to consider himself married to his flock. This would exclude marriage to a woman.
But is it a good idea practically?
St. Paul says it is (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8) already brought to our mind by TradicalRC.
In our day especially. It used to be that sexual continence was not hard to come by: people married one wife, stayed married to her, considered romantic (let along purely instinctual) frivolities outside of marriage shameful, and so there were examples of chaste life available to children besides priests. Not any longer. I am not aware of another common example of people, male in particular, that stay chaste deliberately, except my priest iin Church. God bless them, it is truly a precious gift.
The Cult of Mary. Again, we are all aware of the miracle of Incarnation being one of the two fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith. Now, the Incarnation required a willing human participant, and Mary was that participant. I do not have to direct you to the first two chapters of Luke, or Matthew 1, where this is explained (see also TragicalRC's post that has the most emphatic part of it). The Incarnation was a cosmic event precisely because a humble servant of Our Lord was at the center of it.
Was she a mere vessel as Protestant calumny goes? Well, now: she was at the Christ's first miracle, -- she, in fact, in some way encouraged it (John 2, the miracle at Cana, again I don't need to remind you of this memorable story).
Then she was with Him through out his ministry, at times being with him when everyone else seemed to abandon Him (Mark 3:31ff; no, Christ did not decide, absurdly, to insult his mother by offering His love to all who love and follow Him; He did it another time, too, in Luke 11:27ff).
And she was at the Cross, just she and young St. John (John 19). At that point something significant happened: dying, Christ asked His mother to adopt "the disciple He loved", and He asked the disciple to take her "with his own" (the Greek original never mentions any "house", which John likely did not have). Now, we Catholics take this seriuously and apply this to ourselves, -- we are the disciples Christ loves. Mary is our mother. It is then our obligation, as heirs to the Jewish law, to honor her, keep her in our houses, ask her advice, talk to her, just plain love her.
Are we bringing some kind of longing for a spiritual mother into the scripture that simply speaks of an economic arrangement for an aging woman, as another Protestant attempt to dismiss the scripture goes? Well, no. The adoption was mutual. If all there was there were an economic arrangement, Jesus being aware of His future passion would have arranged it beforehand as He instructed His disciples how to survive future hardships (Mt 24:16, for example). On the Cross, Christ saw the birth of His Church, and Mary and the Beloved Disciple were the firstborn of it. This is why the role of Mary in the Church did not stop at the hill of Golgotha:
Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven. 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.(Acts 1-2) 1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.
Oh. See who is there. Now the Church is formally birthed, all of the creation will soon hear it. But who is it with the Church, she who had been overshadowed by the same Holy Spirit 30-odd years ago? It is fitting that the Church is born right around Mary's mantle.
It doesn't end there either. Now an aged man, the same adopted disciple, St. John, now known to us as The Theologian, sees this:
the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. [continued to Chapter 12]1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
[...]
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night. (Apoc. 11-12)
So who is it, the Queen of Heaven, the mother of God's Christ? Er, no, don't think that thought, protestant superstitionists warn us...
See who is it however that very much wants to spit a river of lies about our Lady, and who are her chidlren:
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Apoc. 12)This is where we, the rest of her spiritual seed, are today, fighting.
I know what perpetual virginity means; I am just trying to clarify the question. Obviously, the Church might on occasion teach on a subject not covered in the scripture.
You are either dense or intentionally wrong. I suspect the later. I have seen you corrected a half a dozen times on this point, yet you persist. I can only question your motives.
Constantine was NEVER a Pontiff or Pope. He was an emperor. The Pope at the time of the Council of Nicea was Saint Sylvester I.
God (not YHvH) satisfied the earlier covenants by the death and resurrection of Christ who brought the New and Everlasting Covenant.
The title of Pontiff is from Pergamum. A place where Satan dwells. Aha, you do accept YHvH as your G-d. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
knows that Constantine would retain the title of pontifex maximus until his death,
Constantine was a Roman Pontiff.
a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, 12 "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: The One who has the sharp two-edged sword says this:
God (not YHvH) satisfied the earlier covenants by the death and resurrection of Christ who brought the New and Everlasting Covenant.
13 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith
even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
Okay...is the tact now to question the Holy Bible? You were shown where Paul himself calls himself a Pharisee. Not only in the book of Acts but also in Paul's letter to the Phillipians. Will this be a case where we should believe the Catholic Church's traditions over Scripture?
you wrote:
“Every thing you quote from is from a man made tradition.”
Your understanding of reality is man-made.
“You do not quote from The holy Word of G-d.”
Your views expressed in the previous post are not supported by scripture.
“YHvH gave to all of His followers commanded Feasts (appointed times).”
And Christ’s life gave more to the Church.
“The pagan Roman “church” founded at Nicea by the Pontiff Constantine rejected all of YHvH commanded Feasts and replaced them all with Paganism.”
Nope. None were replaced with paganism. Again, put down the Hislop.
Too bad you failed history. You, are again referring to the forged Donation of Constantine document. As a Roman Emperor he bore the title, but abandoned it when he converted as it had NO Christian basis.
Scripture is a product of the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church.
You wrote:
“The title of Pontiff is from Pergamum.”
Nope. They didn’t speak Latin in Pergamum. The title existed in Rome before there was a Pergamum.
I don't say that. The Church is free on the authority of Christ to teach on whatever subject she wishes to teach. The Church in fact has an obligation to teach on matters that are important for our salvation today, such as war and peace, the rights of the unborn, limits of science, etc. None of that were issues in front of the early Church, and hopefully the future generation will consider our battles won and done with one day.
Your post betrays another false supposition: that the Church would teach whatever is expedient. We are against the scripture being the rule of faith because it is not. We could easily say that veneration of Mary and the saints, for example, comes from the scripture. But that would be false doctrine: the scripture is not a source of the teachings of the Church, but rather, the scripture is one product of the Church's teaching authority given her by Christ.
The hostility you precieve is the hostility to deception. I am hostile to the Protestant heresies because I love the Truth. I am especially sorrowful when I see the Protestants pretend that they respect and follow the Holy Scripture that I love, when in fact their foundational doctrines violate the scripture.
The Catholic claim is that the Scripture being a part of the revelation given the Church, the entirety of that revelation is consistent with the scripture. But there are parts of the revelation that are later conciliar teaching, absolutely, such as perpetual virginity of Mary or the wrongfullness of abortion, that do not directly derive from the scripture.
This would make a good tag line for you. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the teachings of the Catholic Church so you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. You are stuck in the Old Testament.
Where did you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and gain for yourself a knowledge or confidence in your understanding such that you feel able to argue it with those who have been formally educated in it?
I worship the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. ROTFLOL !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! YHvH OUR Elohim IS ONE YHvH;(Deu 6:4)
I know that Yah'shua is YHvH's salvation.
I call on the NAME of Yah'shua => YHvH is my salvation.
SEE : 1 Ki. 18:24f; 2 Ki. 5:11; Isa. 12:4; 41:25; 44:5; 48:2; 65:1; Jer. 10:25; Zeph. 3:9; Zech. 13:9; Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13; 1 Co. 1:2
Who do you worship ?
Nope. None were replaced with paganism. Again, put down the Hislop.
Show me where Easter, christmas and Sunday worship is taught in the Holy Word of G-d .
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I worship the One God, but have doubts about your belief system since the God you referenced prohibits bearing false witness.
Telling us about what your faith believes is your prerogative, however professing to state the position of the Catholic Church, of which you admit you know nothing, paints you as being either a fool or a malicious provocateur.
Nope. They didn’t speak Latin in Pergamum. The title existed in Rome before there was a Pergamum.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Pergamon, Pergamum or Pérgamo (in Greek, Πέργαμος 39°7′N 27°11′E) was an ancient Greek city in modern-day Turkey, in Mysia, today located 16 miles (26 km) from the Aegean Sea on a promontory on the north side of the river Caicus (modern day Bakırçay), that became the capital of the Kingdom of Pergamon during the Hellenistic period, under the Attalid dynasty, 281–133 BC. Today, the main sites of ancient Pergamon are to the north and west of the modern city of Bergama.
WRONG AGAIN !!!
But you said before:
The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect.
Where did the "contradictory" and "suspect" picture of Paul as a self-admitted Pharisee come from then?
As i posted earlier you are stuck in the Old Testament where adherence to laws of conduct such as weird hair cuts, grooming standards, male genital mutilation, and dietary requirements are paramount. Christ came to replace these covenants with a New and Everlasting Covenant. Easter, Christmas, and Sunday Worship are to celebrate His birth and resurrection and our Salvation.
For future reference I will respond to you if you ask a legitimate question regarding the Trinitarian Catechism of the Catholic Church or any of its Encyclicals and dogma, but will ignore any lies or provocations.
I worship the One God, but have doubts about your belief system since the God you referenced prohibits bearing false witness.
Telling us about what your faith believes is your prerogative, however professing to state the position of the Catholic Church, of which you admit you know nothing, paints you as being either a fool or a malicious provocateur.
Yah'shua said not to call your brother: Raca
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
2 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
I guess you do not worship Yah'shua
or you would have known that as someone who claims to be educated.
Paul admitted that he arrested and persecuted Christians. This was work of the Sadducces, not the Pharisees. How do you explain that contradiction?
I have no idea what YHvH is, I think it refers to allah and get tho o fixed on your keyboard so you can spell God
Pretty nice of you to self report for making this personal.
The word :lord, Lord or LORD is used as a replacement where ever YHvH is found in the Bible.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
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.