Posted on 06/14/2002 10:21:48 AM PDT by Polycarp
Actually, the texts don't conflict with one another at all. The proofs you cite show that celibacy is an option -- even a good thing -- for those who can handle it. However, it is a far leap of logic to deduce that celibacy must be enforced for clergy.
Further, how would you explain the passages which describe marriage for church leaders? How would you explain Peter and the other Popes and clergy who married until the idea of enforced celibacy was dreamed up? Was Peter violating God's will for church leaders?
Your position is inconsistent with scripture and fails on the face of its logic.
2. Again not your point - but, if there are so many men available for the priesthood, why is it that the bishops refuse to release me from civilian parishes to enter the military chaplaincy? There are approx 1100 chaplains in the Army (active duty). Statistically, 1/3rd should be priests. Yet, less than 100 are now on active duty, and most of those are over the age of 55. When I was a chaplain, we had one priest that was over 70, from Poland, and could barely speak English. He was a wonderful, godly man, but he did not belong in the Army!
Re: interpretation of Scripture, and particularly 1 Tim 3 ( Titus 1:6,7 also). There can only be one meaning - God did not write the Scriptures for each group to take its own interpretation. And frankly, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on the issue of marriage of priests. Paul says to Titus "if any man is above reproach (that leaves out the pedophiles), the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion ( I wonder how many that would exclude)." 1 Tim says the same thing. These are the only places in the New Testament where Paul lays out the qualifications for an elder/presbyter/overseer. This is pretty clear. Paul knew that the priesthood would be demanding, and that men needed to lead a credible life before the people to be heard and followed. In all of the discussion about celibacy, these seem to be the least mentioned passages, and yet the most definitive.
Grace and peace to all
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
Note it says "must be the husband of one wife". Note it does not equivocate. It says "must be" the husband of one wife. That means married and only once. It doesn't say "if married, must be the husband of one wife". It doesn't allow for much spin.
I don't think Paul intended to disqualify Jesus from church leadership. Do you?
I Timothy 4:1-3 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
My recollection is that you identify yourself as an "Episcopalian". If by that you mean ECUSA, you are a member of a group which endorses abortion, including partial-birth abortion; which says it has no "core doctrine" prohibiting the ordination of openly practicing homosexuals' and which tolerates an apostate non-Christian who claims to be a "bishop," namely one John Shelby Spong.
Why don't you clean up your own septic tank before complaining about ours?
That means "not the husband of more than one wife". If it excludes celibate men from church leadership, then you're claiming it excludes Jesus. You're also excluding John the Apostle, because there's no evidence that he ever married. There's a dispute about whether Paul was married, but it's clear that, if he was, he lived continently, because in 1 Corinthians he counsels his readers to be unmarried, saying "I wish you to be as I am".
Because some Catholic individuals have decided to be protestant, picking and choosing which doctrines on sexual morality to which to adhere, in this case homosexuality, thus discouraging good orthodox heterosexual Catholic candidates who can and would be celibate from entering the priesthood.
This has nothing, NOTHING to do with priestly celibacy.
If it did, protestants would have no problems with pederasty, because their ministers can marry.
Yet protestants have just as big a problem, if not greater, than the RCC, but it is not on the agenda of the NWO to destroy protestantism. Why? Because Satan knows the right address. Protestantism is not Satan's adversary. Roman Catholicism is. Therefore the media is relatively silent on the equal number of these cases among protestant ministers.
Oh, and the Greek word translated "meats" in the KJV simply means food. And all of the evidence indicates that Paul was talking about Gnostic groups of his own time, who really did forbid all of their members to marry, and who preached a number of odd doctrines concerning food, including salvation by eating cucumbers.
As for "commandments of men," I read the Bible myself. I come up with conclusions which differ from yours. If I were to submit myself to believing in your interpretation of what the Bible says, that would be following the commandments of men.
We did, a few centuries ago...
You mean the modernists who thought that everyone should be able to read the Word of God in their native tongue? The modernists who thought it was ok for the common man to read His Word? The modernists who believe the world is round and that the earth is not the physical center of the universe?
You mean those modernists?
What an odd thing to say. Christianity is satans only adversary. I am a Christian. At my best I am satans adversary.
What an odd thing to say. Christianity is satans only adversary. I am a Christian. At my best I am satans adversary.
Yes, you are interpreting, and against the most natural meaning of the verse.
It doesn't say, "It says 'must be' the husband of one wife."
Now, you're not only misinterpreting, you're misquoting. You got it right just a sentence or two earlier, "the husband of but one wife".
This is a little archaic. It would be easier to understand if translated, "the husband of only one wife."
I own a rental condo in a building where the rule is that each unit must have only two cars. The word "must" doesn't apply to having two cars ("must have two cars"), it applies to having ONLY two cars, no more, that's the limit. I know a lot of folks in the building that only have one car. No one has cited them for breaking the condo rules.
But your interpretation, though it seems strained to me, isn't altogether outrageous. It is your interpretation.
It happens to be an interpretation that the overwhelming number of professed Christians worldwide reject. Catholics reject it. Holy Orthodoxy rejects it. The Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, most Baptists, etc., etc. reject this interpretation. But, I will grant, for the sake of argument, that it is a rationally defensible interpretation. It is clearly not an interpretation required by the text. The very fact that a relatively small number of professed Christians agrees with you is testament to that.
So, the question remains, by what authority do you assert that your interpretation is superior to the interpretation given to this verse by, say, 80% or 90% of the rest of the Christians in the world?
Just curious.
In charity,
sitetest
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.