Posted on 03/09/2010 12:13:22 PM PST by the invisib1e hand
“To be celibate is to be unmarried.”
Not in the context of the article at hand.
He was a plain old fisherman who was called by Christ to become the leader of the Twelve Apostles. We were talking about Peter in the context of his being a bishop and about priesthood in the early Christian Church as a transformation of Jewish priesthood even as the early Christian liturgy was a transformed Jewish liturgy, as Christ came not to destroy but to transform the Jewish faith in the Creator God, which he himself stated numerous times and as the author of Hebrews does with his rereading of Hebrew sacrifice/priesthood to spell out how Christ transformed it.
Plain old fisherman is half true. More like 10 % true. You left out the important parts.
Close, but no cigar.
I’ve got news for you. Catholicism says that we are all priests, by baptism. Which is what the Bible says (kingdom of priests). It also says that ordained clergy are that kind of priest but also another kind (ministerial priests, sacramental priests, derived from bishops, derived from the obvious NT special role for the Apostles WHICH WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE ROLE OF THE REST OF CHRISTIANS) which is also what the Bible says, in the same places (e.g., in Hebrews).
Even you Billy-Bob Rolex Bible Church folks (with a few exceptions) talk about “ordination.” Whatever you mean by it (your 7,000 denominations have a wide range of meanings for it, all of them, you all assure us, totally “biblical”), clearly you make a distinction between “priestood of all believers” and whatever this “ordained minister” category might mean.
So you no more restrict yourselves to “priesthood of all believers” than we do.
So put a sock in your proclamation that you don’t have anything other than “everyone is a priest.”
As I pointed out in my very first comment on this thread, the title of this article uses “celibacy” incorrectly. The headline writer should have written “continence” or “abstinence.” People often say “celibate” when they mean continent or abstinent. But if you look at the actual meaning of the word, “celibacy” means, “unmarried.” So married priests can’t really be “unmarried.” They can, however, while being married, be “abstinent.”
But the article’s writer didn’t know that. That’s dumb. For you to use the article’s dumbness to prove a point is, well, how can I put this delicately, just a tad foolish.
No, they were not priests in that temple but they were priests of The New Temple, the Temple of the Body of Christ, Priests after the Order of Melchisidek, the priesthood that preceded the Hebrew temple and came bursting into new and transformed life in Christ.
It’s all there in the NT, if you read Hebrews combined with Matthew combined with Corinthians combined with Revelation.
In other words, if you read the Bible as an integrated whole rather than prooftexting from it.
No, chaste can apply to married sex just as to unmarried abstinence. As I explained in an earlier comment:
chastity means different things depending on one’s state in life.
For the unmarried to be chaste is to be totally sexually abstinent.
For the married, to be chaste is to practice sex chastely, properly, in purity—which means selflessly rather than selfishly. One can use one’s spouse selfishly, which is unchaste. One can give oneself to one’s spouse selflessly (and both can do this mutually) and be chaste in one’s sexual relations.
Chastity applies to everyone; everyone is to do the right thing regarding sex. For the unmarried, the right thing is total abstinence and that’s being “chaste.” For the married, doing the right thing is to be selfless, not merely selfishly self-gratifying.
Some people use “chaste” when they mean “abstinent” or “continent,” just as some people use “celibate” when they mean “continent” or abstinent. A lot of Catholics misuse these words. It would really help to avoid confusion if people would use “celibate” and “chaste” correctly.
Lears: “Your statement is what’s commonly known as a “straw man fallacy”
Well, looks like you are able to identify my alleged “straw-man” arguments because you are so good at them yourself:
[Lears] “So kindly remove your obsolete priests from barring the way which Jesus Christ opened to all of us”
Takes one to know one.
Nice try. I am not bitter about anything
I don’t
The misconception is that Synod or Council of Elvira was an ecumenical council with authority over the entire Church. It was not and is not considered one of the seven Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.. It was a council between the 19 bishops of Iberia to establish consensus and governing rules within their jurisdiction. It was not the first or only council, but is notable because its canon has survived. Although there are 81 canons attributed to this council some historians believe that as few as 21 were actually authored by the council.
As for the infamous canon 33 it is not clear whether this prohibition all marital contact, a prohibition against the clergy having children that would detract them from their obligation, duties and loyalties, or a temporary measure like fasting before the Eucharist.
I accept that the Catholic Church, with the ability to study the original documents in the context of the language usage and the culture of the times has arrived at a more accurate interpretation than agenda driven Protestants with no more preparation than a Sunday School lesson, a Google search engine and a 30 second reflection..
Your participation and vitriol on this thread speak otherwise. Perhaps you maintain a subliminal desire to actually become an active part of the Catholic Church.
I know it was a local council and I know why it was called..but it laid the foundation for celibacy
No, it only addressed a long standing issue within the Christian community within Iberia. It was the subject of debate and sought to find a scripturally based consensus. IF you read the other 80 Canons from this council you will find a number if issues that address Jewish, Pagan, and Eastern cultural practices and emerging civil law as well as Christian theology. The council is only really relevant because its Canon has survived to provide a snap shot of the times. It is a pity that there was no "Federalist Papers" equivalent to give us insight into the debate and conclusions.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA
Garsh Mickey, you read an awful lot into some simple scripture quoting
Give another reason for your lurking and engaging in a thread that deals only with an administrative policy of the Catholic Church.
We were talking about Peter being a married Jewish man, keeping the law as he knew it.
I still maintain that in all likelihood Peter was not celibate until after the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus.
Yes, Peter had sex wirth a woman. Holy Cow!
You young seminarians are so brainwashed nowadays. Try to think for yourself.
Marital sex is good. God made it that way.
A celibate clergy is a manmade concept....observed only in the breach in countries like Mexico, Spain, Italy, and all over Africa.
Widen your horizons, boy, and do a little more outside reading.
Or do you still adhere to the Index of Forbidden Books?
Palladin: “I still maintain that in all likelihood Peter was not celibate until after the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus.”
Pure speculation. All Scripture says is that he had a mother-in-law. This is a manmade interpretation.
“You young seminarians are so brainwashed nowadays. Try to think for yourself.”
I’m not a seminarian. I’m married for 30 years. Stop reading things into texts. You speculate wildly. You created a huge manmade myth about me, based on zero evidence.
“Marital sex is good. God made it that way.”
I never said otherwise. Abstinence from sex has NOTHING to do with sex not being good. By your stupid reasoning, anyone who diets does so because food is EEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIIIILOLLLLL. You are a fool, Boy.
“A celibate clergy is a manmade concept....observed only in the breach in countries like Mexico, Spain, Italy, and all over Africa.”
It’s not a manmade CONCEPT. Read Matthew 19, for once, Boy. The concept comes from Jesus himself, explicitly. Rather than your manmade speculations and inventions, I have explicit Scripture behind the idea of abstaining.
“Widen your horizons, boy, and do a little more outside reading.”
Shut your trap, Boy.
“Or do you still adhere to the Index of Forbidden Books?”
Have you stopped beating your wife or screwing goats?
My, my, how very unChristlike of you.
lurking???? This was in the religion area. It wasn’t posted as “Catholics only”. Seems to me I am free to comment as I will.
One might as easily ask why are YOU so defensive????
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.