Completely false. Celibacy was the practice in the Latin church from apostolic times. For more information read The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.
Posted on 11/27/2013 6:13:19 AM PST by NYer
Completely false. Celibacy was the practice in the Latin church from apostolic times. For more information read The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.
Yes.... and here is what it says....”An unmarried WOMAN or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, NOT (emphasis added) to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.”
I do not think St. Paul in his letter here is making a case for a celibate unmarried clergy.
There's also the matter of celibacy being an eloquent eschatological sign, that is, a sign of being "not of this world" and a reminder that "this world" is coming to an end --- which is signalized by the other two monastic vows, poverty and obedience, as well. (Understand that monastic vows are not entirely the same as priestly vows --- too complicated to get into here.)
If I had to guess, I'd guess that the West will always have a mostly-celibate priesthood, the exceptions being the accomodations made for married Anglican and other priests converting and finding their way into the Catholic priesthood with wife and kids in tow.
BUT. What WILL happen, is that the priesthood will continue to decline in numbers, and more and more parochial functions will be taken over by deacons --- who are primarily called from the ranks of the married. So we'll have more and more parishes without a resident priest, but with two or three resident deacons carrying out almost all of the pastoral and administrative functions, as well as many of the sacramental ones (Baptism, and Matrimony.)
The Liturgical and Sacramental functions which absolutely need a priest (as celebrant at Mass, plus Confirmation, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick) will be done by circuit-riding priests, and much less frequently. Daily Masses and resident Priest-Pastors will be a thing of the past in most parishes.
This doesn't take much prophetic insight. It's happening already.
How about Paul’s letters to Timothy where he describes the roles of Bishop, Deacon and Presbyter (the name for a priest in those days.)??
It’s possible. I’m easily fooled.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.
(Matt 19:12)Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
(1 Cor 7:7-9)
I don,t care what the bible says, if God calls a man to marry a man or an animal or if God calls a woman to preach the Bible is,nt his word more important than the Bible? sarc.
I will make it a point to check that book out of the library. It looks interesting. However, for a quick reference, here is what Wikipedia (not that I think that source should always be taken as gospel) has to say about the subject: (under the category of clerical celibacy)
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries:
“The tenth century is claimed to be the high point of clerical marriage in the Latin communion (Catholic Church). Most rural priests were married and many urban clergy had wives and children....a large number of clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices (Church property)...”
“Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
He does not say MUST accept it.
There were other reasons that were more tied to popular philosophy than anything, but you hit some good points.
Can you please cite chapter and verse so I can look at the text.
You just described how the LCMS in my area ended up with Communion every other week instead of weekly. In larger areas, this is not the case.
The reason does date back from Christ being a man who was resurected. Making women priests would be revising history and claiming God in flesh could have been woman, which would violate the idea of spiritual independence through God from Eve as mother of all living things.
All interesting facts. What should be explored further (IMHO) is the history of celibacy.
“It should be noted that celibacy is more of a tradition....NOT a doctrine.”
Who is claiming it is a doctrine?
“There is nothing in the Gospels, or the Bible which insists upon priestly celibacy.”
Insists? No. Encourages? Yes.
“Celibacy came about 1000 after the founding of the Church.”
No. There has always been some celibate clergy. It was only in the last first millennium that the Roman Church said she would not ordain men unless they were celibate.
“The first 40 popes at least were married men.”
And the practice was to live as brother and sister in many cases if not all.
“Celibacy was introduced in the Middle Ages to combat corruption within the Church.”
That was one reason, but not the only one.
“Many priests began treating Church property as their own personal property and were leaving it to their children to inherit it. It was thus decided to protect Church property that priests should not be allowed to marry and have their own families.”
That was not the only reason. What you are forgetting is that the biggest supporters of clerical celibacy were the monasteries and bishops - all of whom were celibate anyway. They supported it for reasons other than what you have mentioned.
Christ never preached equality but quite His own uniqueness. Infact He was ungainly in looks and easy to spit on. He praised the persecuted because they would be vomited out of the world.
St. Paul echoed that man is not to be a slave of man or woman and ought to serve God and not wife. If that is not a point on the praising of dedicated celibacy for the sake of life of others and of one’s soul, then what is?
I know that that line has been repeated by many sources but I have never seen any documentation for the original source. Given the contrary evidence it is most likely pure invention.
But this is directed to everyone, not just clergy. The Church on the other hand is free to choose those whom it wishes for clergy and it has decided to choose those who accept the charism of celibacy. No one has a right to be a priest.
Trolls base themselves in a fictitious account of their belief in God and Jesus when in fact they have no such. It is deception argument. They like wolf in sheep clothing hide their advocacy against God whie pretending they come from God’s viewpoint. Islam does the same, by the way.
willywill!! du is short for www. DemocraticUnderground . com. A most delightful website which would be delighted to hear from you. You'll fit right in, I'm sure. Tell them I sent you.
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.