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.
Now this is helpful. Clearly RnMomof7 quoted a phrase that’s rocketing around the internet in anti-Catholic contexts. But none of the search result sites that I checked give any citation to a text from Gregory—these sites just hand on stuff that’s been floating around forever.
May RnMomo7 has another more detailed source that actually quoted (selectively and falsely) from Migne.
“Margery Kempe and her husband, after many years of marriage and many children did it.”
That is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of.
LOL
You wrote:
“That is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of.”
They chose to give up their conjugal life together. I should have stated it more clearly.
Can you tell me if it costs more or less than is charged? Can you make a compelling argument why either the Church or your fellow parishioners should subsidize your mistakes?
You should direct this toward your fellow Protestants and fellow failed Catholics because you won't hear that from the Catholic Church. Care to share with us why you are so bitter?
Scripture tells us what must be done, but it is not a how to manual. Besides, why do you care how an organization that you are not a part of and know nothing of organizes its administration and affairs?
Imagine actually knowing what celibacy means and feeling foolish...try hard and it might happen.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Snake, you have properly characterized the position of the Catholic Church. For a number of reasons there are already more than 100 married Catholic priests here in the US and many more world wide. There are no chastity or continence requirements on them. I know of no instances where an ordained priest has married while still a priest.
You are free to interpret Scripture the way you wish. But Scripture does not simply “say” what you say.
I get so tired of people to whom it’s just so darn obvious that Scripture “says” what they already believe.
What I have written represents a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. I do not not claim to interpret Scripture. I also am basing it on information we have about the early Christian history post-Scripture.
Live in your bubble in which “Scripture says” what you’ve decided it says.
The key Scriptures; Mt. 19, 1 Cor 7, the “husband of one wife” passage and even the Peter’s mother-in-law passage, taken together, actually all point to preference for “eunuchs for the kingdom” for priests/bishops.
But your mind is already made up. Keep talking to yourself.
But don’t condescend to “correct me.” Offer your alternative opinion if you wish, but lose the “let me correct you” patronization.
I didn’t ignore nuthin’. See post 83. Paul is speaking to laypeople, recommending mutually agreed abstinence in order to pray.
Priests/bishops are professional prayers—their lives are given to it, which is EXACTLY why they don’t have families and children. Laypeople’s priesthood given in baptism can be expressed in the vocation to marriage and children, in which case their abstinence for prayer will be intermittent. Laypeople who do not marry will be abstinent all the time and their mission won’t be making and raising children but will be something else—business, teaching, whatever. Bishops and priests’ mission is to give themselves up in total sacrifice for the flock (Jn 10—see, it’s Scriptural, combined with Mt. 19 where Jesus pretty clearly says that he expects his apostles to be eunuchs, continent), so their abstinence is permanent once ordained, even if married (the only difference if they are married is that, having made a vow to their wives, they can’t unilaterally pledge permanent abstinence, so the wife has a veto).
All of these states in life are compatible with Paul’s advice about abstinence for prayer and “coming together again,” since he’s clearly speaking to people considering marriage. For himself, as an apostle, he makes pretty clear that abstinence/celibacy is preferred.
Excuse me, but the English word "priest" comes directly from the Greek word presbyter (elder), and the office of elder was most certainly not "made obsolete along with the Old Covenant". In fact, it was instituted as part of the New Covenant.
A priest intercedes between man and God, while bishops oversee a church.
All Christians are called to intercede for each other.
A bishop is an episkopos or overseer. The office presbyter, during or shortly after NT times, became the deputy or vicar of the bishop, as bishops were understood to oversee the entire church of a small region or city. This is crystal clear from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 107), who knew the Apostles personally.
And, BTW, the NT says that we are all priests, in the sense of a different Greek word, hieratos, one who offers sacrificial worship to a deity.
Thanks for making my point. Contrast that with the Catholics’ practice and you’ll see another of their many disputes with Scripture.
I just described "the Catholics' practice".
you'll see another of their many disputes with Scripture.
Which will never begin to compare with the Protestants' many outright rejections of Scripture, starting with John chapter 6 and 1 Cor chapter 11.
You're starting to annoy me now, so I'll post the link to Marcus Grodi's "Scripture verses I never saw [as a Protestant minister]"
So I take it you don't allow single men to be called, nor infertile men to be called, and a "bishop" of yours who loses his wife next loses his job. Right?
Oh, and Jesus would not have been qualified to be a bishop in his own church. Right?
That is, if you really mean what you say you mean.
Hint: there's a big difference between a concession and a command.
Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote. The Bible says one thing. Catholicism says another.
The Bible says bishops or overseers or elders or shepherds (or, if you prefer, presbyters). Catholicism says priests.
The Bible says we are all priests. Catholicism says “Here’s your priest.”
The Bible says we have salvation through Jesus, our High Priest. Catholicism says you have to go through their priest.
The Bible says bishops are to be husbands and fathers. Catholicism says they’re not to be married nor have families.
The Bible says husbands and wives are not to cease conjugal relations except temporarily. Catholicism says their bishop-priests are to cease permanently.
I can’t understand why anyone would choose Catholicism over Christianity. *shrug*
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.