Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Married Priests Practiced Celibacy
Rome Reports ^ | March 8, 2010 | Rome Reports

Posted on 03/09/2010 12:13:22 PM PST by the invisib1e hand

Married or single priests from the early stages of Christianity practiced celibacy, according to a Vatican archaeologist.

During the first four centuries, married priests would renounce having intimate relationships with their wives, but they needed their the approval of their spouse.

Brief video: http://www.romereports.com/palio/modules.php?t=Married-priests-from-the-first-centuries-practiced-celibacy&name=News&file=article&newlang=english&sid=1740


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: bushwa; celibacy; church; margaretmeade; priest; voodooscience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201 next last

1 posted on 03/09/2010 12:13:22 PM PST by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; NYer; wagglebee

fyi.


2 posted on 03/09/2010 12:14:01 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (let the rich eat the rich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

From what I hear, a lot of married couples do as well.


3 posted on 03/09/2010 12:14:50 PM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“but they needed their the approval of their spouse.”

“Yes, dear you may go be a celibate priest, we have 8 children already...!”


4 posted on 03/09/2010 12:19:39 PM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I have read that the priests were not allowed to have sex before they said mass because their hands would touch “christ”


5 posted on 03/09/2010 12:24:12 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

>> Married or single priests from the early stages of Christianity practiced celibacy, according to a Vatican archaeologist.

That’s some pretty impressive archaeology.

SnakeDoc


6 posted on 03/09/2010 12:33:47 PM PST by SnakeDoctor (The night is darkest just before the dawn, but [...] the dawn is coming. -- Harvey Dent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
The Bible teaches differently:

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.


- I Corinthians 7:3-5
7 posted on 03/09/2010 12:34:09 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
"From what I hear, a lot of married couples do as well."

Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of celibate and chaste.

8 posted on 03/09/2010 12:34:55 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Yikes. Tough thread. Note to self: Don’t every try to inject a little humor in the religion forum.


9 posted on 03/09/2010 12:36:59 PM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"I have read that the priests were not allowed to have sex before they said mass because their hands would touch “christ”"

But I'll bet you can't recall where you read that. I'll also bet it wasn't in any Catholic Encyclical or in the Catechism.

10 posted on 03/09/2010 12:37:05 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

That’s like taking a shower with a raincoat on.


11 posted on 03/09/2010 12:38:26 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
Was not Peter the key holder married???? Spiritually speaking the Heavenly Father was ‘married’ way back in Jeremiah 3:8 “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of D I V O R C E; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared NOT, but went and played the harlot also....

Marriage has NEVER been forbidden and DIVORCE is NOT the unforgivable sin.

12 posted on 03/09/2010 12:38:39 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
"The Bible teaches differently:"

Celibacy only means unmarried.

13 posted on 03/09/2010 12:38:53 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Celibacy only means unmarried.

Paul was speaking to married couples, such as those mentioned in the article above...

"married priests would renounce having intimate relationships with their wives"
14 posted on 03/09/2010 12:44:54 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Marriage has NEVER been forbidden "

Celibacy of the Catholic priesthood is an administrative policy, it is not based in Scripture nor does it have to be. Democracy and air travel are not in Scripture either.

"and DIVORCE is NOT the unforgivable sin."

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"

- Mark 10:11-12

15 posted on 03/09/2010 12:47:32 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I’m living proof that you can be both married and celibate. /ha


16 posted on 03/09/2010 12:48:13 PM PST by Spok (Free Range Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Ya never want to bet with me NL :)

306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.


17 posted on 03/09/2010 12:48:47 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Just mythoughts
"and DIVORCE is NOT the unforgivable sin."
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" - Mark 10:11-12

he did not say it was not a sin, he said it was not THE unforgivable sin

18 posted on 03/09/2010 12:53:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"Ya never want to bet with me NL :)

Pay up. The reason had nothing to do with "touching Christ" as you contended. Like all celebrants he couldn't eat or drink the night before either. It was about sacrifice. By the way it wasn't until 325 (Council of Nicea) that ordained priests could not marry.

19 posted on 03/09/2010 12:54:40 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"Marriage has NEVER been forbidden "

Celibacy of the Catholic priesthood is an administrative policy, it is not based in Scripture nor does it have to be. Democracy and air travel are not in Scripture either.

Many liberties have been taken under administrative policies and then called holy.

"and DIVORCE is NOT the unforgivable sin."

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" - Mark 10:11-12

Adultery against a mate is NOT the unforgivable sin, and the sin does NOT require some administrative policy of exchange of money to be forgiven..... NOW there is a different penalty to commit spiritually speaking to commit adultery against the Heavenly Father... As Christ is called spiritually the 'bridegroom', and it will not do well for anyone to be messing around with a fake 'bridegroom', as it is WRITTEN.

20 posted on 03/09/2010 12:55:51 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

From:The Life of Fr. De Smet, Apostle of the Rockies:

“With his soul inundated with joy, Father De Smet thanked God for having chosen him to be the instrument of His designs. “I believe firmly in the hundredfold promised by Our Saviour. What we have given up in this world is as nothing compared to what we have found and experienced in the wilderness.

How is the phenomenal success of these missions to be explained? Many of the Indians possessed admirable natural virtues; they but needed to know Christianity to embrace it. Even the most degraded had preserved a high ideal of the greatness of the power of God. Blasphemy was unknown among them: not presuming to address the “Great Spirit,” they entreated their manitous to intercede for them. Superstition if you will, but beneath it was a religious sentiment which the missionary had only to enlighten and direct. None held back through false pride or prejudice. Even the Sioux, the proudest of the Western tribes, compared themselves to children bereft of a father’s guiding hand, and to the ignorant animals of the prairie, and with touching humility begged the missionary to “take pity on them.”

Such elevated, upright souls could, moreover, appreciate the chastity of the Catholic priesthood. With rare discernment, the Indian understood that, belonging as he does to all men, a priest cannot give himself to one person, and not for an instant did they hesitate to choose the Black Robe, who had consecrated his life to them, rather than the minister in lay dress, installed in a comfortable home with wife and children, devoted to the interests of his family, giving only the time that remained to distributing Bibles” .


If you want married priests become a Protestant.


21 posted on 03/09/2010 12:58:56 PM PST by Leoni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"he did not say it was not a sin, he said it was not THE unforgivable sin."

There are no unforgivable sins. CCC 982 - "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

22 posted on 03/09/2010 12:59:21 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
There are no unforgivable sins. CCC 982 - "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Might want to read the 'fine' print, as there IS an unforgivable sin, although adultery or marriage or administrative policy are NOT that particular sin. And there is NO administrative policy that will set aside that penalty....

23 posted on 03/09/2010 1:02:35 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Pay up. The reason had nothing to do with "touching Christ" as you contended. Like all celebrants he couldn't eat or drink the night before either. It was about sacrifice. By the way it wasn't until 325 (Council of Nicea) that ordained priests could not marry.

So sex made them too dirty to do WHAT SACRIFICE ? duh... the bread

385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.

567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.

590-604-Pope Gregory “the Great” said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself

24 posted on 03/09/2010 1:02:45 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
There are no unforgivable sins. CCC 982 - "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.

Jesus said there was an unforgivable sin... do you know what it is?

25 posted on 03/09/2010 1:04:49 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
" and the sin does NOT require some administrative policy of exchange of money to be forgiven....."

The practice of purchasing indulgences was banned over 500 years ago, rendering Luther Moot. Further, indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven. The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).

26 posted on 03/09/2010 1:04:50 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

The title is misleading. The author means “practiced continence” or “abstinence.”

Celibacy means unmarried.
Continence means abstinence from marital relations, either outside of marriage or within marriage.


27 posted on 03/09/2010 1:04:52 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"and DIVORCE is NOT the unforgivable sin."

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" - Mark 10:11-12 he did not say it was not a sin, he said it was not THE unforgivable sin

I am a 'she', and sin is the transgression of the law, but marriage nor divorce was never ever the unpardonable sin. Marriage was NEVER ever forbidden by the clergy by the Heavenly Father or His only begotten, it was an by admission an administrative policy.... Paul did say it was better to marry than to 'burn' with passion if one was to be away from the 'wife' and or husband.... gasp imagine that woman in the office of 'teaching', why I might just get some holy water tossed upon me....

28 posted on 03/09/2010 1:08:01 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

The passage you quoted says not to refrain from sexual relations unilaterally (the “marriage debt”). But St. Paul goes on to make an exception: “except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again.”

The bishop’s (priests derived from bishops) life is to be one of prayer.

This is the basis for the discipline that required arried bishops and priests to abstain from marital relations, by mutual consent, upon ordination.

But I doubt I’ll convince you. Your mind is made up if you post something that undermines your own claim and don’t realize that it does.


29 posted on 03/09/2010 1:08:42 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"Jesus said there was an unforgivable sin... do you know what it is?"

One cannot seek the forgiveness from God while at the same time rejecting God. "The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. 'My spirit shall not always strive with man,' God said long ago (Genesis 6:3).

30 posted on 03/09/2010 1:10:01 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
The practice of purchasing indulgences was banned over 500 years ago, rendering Luther Moot. Further, indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven. The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).

Really? Now how much does it cost to annul a marriage so as to bless a marriage within the church.... Please don't tell me it is 'free' of charge as I know different....

31 posted on 03/09/2010 1:10:26 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

The requirement of abstinence before service at the altar goes back to Jewish priestly practice. Priests served at the temple in rotation and were to abstain when “on duty.”

Christianity saw priesthood (bishops, from which office that of priest is derived) as a totally consuming, self-sacrificing office. St. Paul assumes that all devout Christian couples will regularly abstain from marital relations in order to pray and fast. Priests’ whole lives are to be given to what other couples do regularly but intermittently rather than continuously.


32 posted on 03/09/2010 1:10:59 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

We know that he had been married, but we know that only because his mother-in-law is mentioned. His wife is never mentioned. We have to infer her existence from the mention o his mother-in-law. It’s a proper inference.

But since he’s never portrayed as “actively” married and his wife is not mentioned, no children are ever mentioned: who knows whether she was even living at the time he left his nets to follow Jesus or, if she was living(possible) whether they had marital relations after that. Telling the world whether you and your wife are doing the deed regularly or not is not something most of us are going to do. It’s not exactly the sort of thing you’d expect to make its way into Scripture.

Nothing in Scripture precludes the possibility that Peter and his wife practiced continence after he was chosen to be the head of the Twelve, if she was even still living at that point.


33 posted on 03/09/2010 1:14:08 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Gregory the Great did not say that sexual desire was in itself sinful but that in a fallen world it is disordered, as are our appetites for food and a lot of other things.

Unlike Buddhism, desires cannot in themselves be evil or sinful for Christians and Jews because desires were created by God. Since the Fall, however, they are disordered, big time.

When you find the Latin quote from Gregory that supports your claim, please post it. But don’t bother with quotes in translation from your anti-Catholic Cliffs Notes.


34 posted on 03/09/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
The practice of purchasing indulgences was banned over 500 years ago, rendering Luther ( Moot.)RIGHT

Further, indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

So God forgives sin but still wants to punish you for it?

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).

So you confess your sin, the priest tells you that you are "forgiven" if you say a few prayers..and then when you die you have some corporal punishment even though God "dropped the charges " So what you need is a bail bondman to give some money to Rome and then they will tell God to let you out early"

35 posted on 03/09/2010 1:19:56 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
One cannot seek the forgiveness from God while at the same time rejecting God. "The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. 'My spirit shall not always strive with man,' God said long ago (Genesis 6:3).

Acts 2:17 describing what is speaking the Holy Spirit comes from Joel 2:28-31 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 'I will pour out of My Spirit upon flesh: and your sons and your daughters (gasp) shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams".........

36 posted on 03/09/2010 1:20:39 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Slight correction. Priests were still permitted to be married long after 325. If married before being ordained (they could not marry after ordination), they were expected to be continent/abstinent in both East and West until the East changed in 695. The West forbad ordination for already married men only later (because married priests were not obeying their continence pledge) and only really enforced the prohibition of being marred (celibacy) in the 1000s.


37 posted on 03/09/2010 1:20:53 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

And since the priest had already been married AND the RC does not acknowledge divorce tell me please how one such as that can be celibate???

And of course they can’t. Chaste perhaps but nothing in the scripture requires that


38 posted on 03/09/2010 1:23:57 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Celibacy is defined as the lifestyle of someone who is, and is striving to remain, unmarried all his/her life. It is also used to describe a state of life where one chooses to abstain from all sexual activities (also known as “continence”). Often, it is incorrectly used to refer to a mixed, an involuntary, or even temporary abstinence from sexual relations – celibacy is by definition a freely chosen state of being unmarried and practicing sexual abstinence.

in a simplistic definition perhaps


39 posted on 03/09/2010 1:26:48 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

That’s fine with me but then I don’t want to hear ANY nonsense about how preist’s are really just Christ on earth and that is why they are unmarried.

Please at least have some consistency in the logic


40 posted on 03/09/2010 1:28:04 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

careful don’t want any bruising of the Gentle Spirit


41 posted on 03/09/2010 1:30:58 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

sure right -— and be sure to have the priest say lots of masses for the loved ones in limbo for FREE and see how that works out in the parish


42 posted on 03/09/2010 1:31:59 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

The eternal punishment for sin (hell) is forgiven by God when a person confesses in sorrow and asks God’s mercy. God never refuses mercy to those who repent (which includes a firm will not to sin again, otherwise it’s not genuine sorrow for having sinned).

The temporal punishment to which indulgences apply is better understood as the effect or wound left behind in the soul of the repentant and forgiven sinner.

When a husband betrays his wife and is truly sorry and begs her to forgive him and she forgives him, genuinely, his is forgiven of the crime of betrayal of her.

But a wound remains in each of them, especially in the offending husband. He has proven himself untrustworthy and she cannot just act as if he never betrayed her

because he did betray her.

So he has to demonstrate his trustworthyness over and over and over by loving her, being trustworthy rather than doing new betrayals.

The analogy is not perfect because human-human and human-God relations are not identical. But in some sense, when we betray God by sinning, we wound ourselves, we make ourselves untrustworthy. God forgives us the punishment of hell by paying the price himself. But that wound is there and God knows it and the sinner knows it. And so he prays, and fasts, and refuses to sin again and eventually the wound is healed.

Indulgences remit whatever unhealedness might remain at death.

You can happily skip along saying that after God forgives you your sin everything is hunkey dory and it’s as if you never sinned at all and ain’t you just peachy

but it just plain ain’t true and you know it.

Catholic faith takes account of the reality of what happens when we sin. God’s grace and mercy are all powerful but God also knows how sin affects us and He’s not so stupid as to say, “hey, buddy, just skip down the garden path and pat yourself all over yourself and be peachy keen and burble along, I’m Okay and you’re okay.”

Because it’s not just okay. Yeah, I’ve escaped hell by God’s grace and Christ’s death on the cross, but I sinned against God and it ain’t all okay with me. I betrayed the God who died for me on the cross and it was a Big Deal and I messed myself up Big Time inside and I better do an awful lot of praying and giving and fasting and loving of God with ever fiber of my being just to show that I’ll never, ever betray Him again.

To simply say, “Hey God, thanks a bundle for dying on the Cross for me and forgiving my sins and ain’t we all happy and peachy and it warn’t no such Big Deal” might

1. incline me to succumb to temptation and sin again before long and

2. sounds a lot like I just take God for granted as a big Forgiveness Dispenser in the Sky.

You’ll complain that what I outlined here is “works righteousness.”

Well, go ahead. What you believe in is cheap grace.


43 posted on 03/09/2010 1:32:44 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Let’s see the tapes.


44 posted on 03/09/2010 1:33:49 PM PST by Palladin (Dear Obama: "Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the long march

The title used the wrong word. “Continence” is what was meant. Celibacy dir not applied to married priests in the early Church. Continence did apply. Just plug in the word “continence” or “abstinence” and your problem is solved.


45 posted on 03/09/2010 1:34:15 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
Homily 33 is recorded in Homiliarian in evangelia, Lib. 11, Patrologia Latina, vol. 76 (Puris: J.-P Migne, 1844‑1864), cols
46 posted on 03/09/2010 1:35:51 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: the long march

Sorry, I was responding really to Natural Law. But you used “chaste” incorrectly. Chaste does not mean abstinence or continence in all cases.

For unmarried people, chaste means abstinnce, no sex.
For married people, chaste means proper sexuality—not selfish, not abusive, full-self-giving—but yes, one can engage in marital relations chastely. Chaste does not mean abstinent if one is married.

For the married priests before celibacy became mandatory, chaste meant abstinence just like for unmarried people.

Chaste simply means “good, proper, ordered”—and what constitutes good and proper varies with one’s state in life.


47 posted on 03/09/2010 1:37:38 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Hard to do any convincing when you cannot cite ANYTHING in the New Testament that portrays a bishop’s duties as you have just laid them out.

If a man desireth the office of a bishop. Here, for the first time in the New Testament, is there a delineation of the qualifications and duties of bishops and deacons. Both offices have been alluded to in Acts (elders, Ac 11:30 14:23 15:02 16:04 20:17; deacons, Ac 6:1-6), and both are named in Php 1:1. To form a correct idea of the New Testament bishop we must get away from modern episcopacy. The New Testament bishop was not diocesan, but in charge of a single church. Each church had a plurality. Elders or presbyters, and bishops were only different designations for the same office. This arrangement was not changed until after the close of the first century and the death of the last of the apostles. Of these statements, admitted by the candid learned even of episcopal bodies, the following proofs may be submitted: (1) Paul summons the elders of the church at Ephesus (Ac 20:17), and calls them bishops ( overseers ) in Ac 20:28. (2) In the church of Philippi the bishops and deacons are named as the officers (Php 1:1). (3) Paul in this Epistle names bishops and deacons as the officers (1Ti 3:1,12), but names elders as officers entrusted with the same duties already named as those of the bishops in 1Ti 5:17-22. (4) In the Epistle to Titus, Paul commands to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5), but in turn describing the qualifications of an elder he calls him a bishop (Titus 1:7). (5) Peter addresses elders and commands them to exercise the office of bishops over the flock (1Pe 5:1,2). The Greek word episkope, as well as the word bishop, etymologically means to act as an overseer, or to take the oversight. (6) I might add that Clement of Rome, who wrote to Corinthians about the beginning of the second century, uses the terms interchangeably.


48 posted on 03/09/2010 1:38:11 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
We know that he had been married, but we know that only because his mother-in-law is mentioned. His wife is never mentioned. We have to infer her existence from the mention o his mother-in-law. It’s a proper inference. But since he’s never portrayed as “actively” married and his wife is not mentioned, no children are ever mentioned: who knows whether she was even living at the time he left his nets to follow Jesus or, if she was living(possible) whether they had marital relations after that. Telling the world whether you and your wife are doing the deed regularly or not is not something most of us are going to do. It’s not exactly the sort of thing you’d expect to make its way into Scripture. Nothing in Scripture precludes the possibility that Peter and his wife practiced continence after he was chosen to be the head of the Twelve, if she was even still living at that point.

When did this fixation upon the sex or intimacy begin? One certainly cannot find Scriptural basis for such fixation.

49 posted on 03/09/2010 1:38:26 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

I need a column number; give it to me and I’ll look the passage. I don’t really feel like reading all of Homily 33 to try to find whatever it is your source is referring to.


50 posted on 03/09/2010 1:39:07 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson