Radio Replies First Volume - Celibacy

Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[A.A. Cunningham]

What was the name of St. Peter's wife and why did you omit the following from your post?

"Then Peter answering, said to Him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30

"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed Thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30

Emphasis added to highlight the fallacy of your post.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Institutionalized celibacy is not found in the Old or New Testaments.

A conclusion reached by a poor student of Scripture.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Peter, was married.

At one time. Scripture never mentions his wife.

Most of the early Church fathers were married.

Source?

Bishops were told they could only have one wife.

St. Paul's counsel to Timothy was that if he selected married men as Bishops, they could have only been married once. There was no mandate from St. Paul, a celibate himself, that married men must be selected as Bishops. In addition, St. Paul instructs Timothy that said men who serve as Bishops must be chaste. One of the definitions of chaste is celibate and celibacy within marriage means abstaining from conjugal relations.

Then, several centuries later, it’s decided that priests and bishops cannot be married at all, because it’s God’s will and tradition and Scripture say so.

This is indisputable proof that you know little to nothing on the topic being discussed.

Suggest you do some reading, unless of course you enjoy coming across as an ignoramus. Which based on your posts here is, no doubt, one of life's pleasures for you.

Yep, no inconsistencies there!

Further proof of the intellectually challenged.

[bobjam]

Then what group of people are called to a life of being single?

[boatbums]

I omitted nothing from my post but the author of the OP sure did. Have you not read:

Matthew 8:14-15 (New International Version)

14When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

Luke 4:38 (New International Version) Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her.

Was there another Simon Peter traveling with Jesus and the other disciples?

Do you suppose Jesus was saying that anyone who would follow him should literally abandon his family? If he meant it that way why did he say:

Mark 7:11-13 (New International Version)

11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Mark 10:19 (New International Version)

19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.

Jesus had to be speaking about a totally dedicated state of mind that would not anyone hinder them from serving the Lord. Would Jesus contradict himself? He also said:

Luke 12:53

They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Luke 14:26

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Paul said: Ephesians 6:2

"Honor (not hate) your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise—

Would Paul contradict Jesus under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

He also said:

1 Timothy 5:8 (King James Version)

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

I think it's pretty obvious that it is not my post that contains the fallacy. Only those that try to force a meaning to scripture based on their preconceived ideas especially when it is so not necessary.

[donmeaker]

I would go with the homosexual Leo X.

The otherfun pope was Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[34] Accused by Bishop Benno of Placenta of “many vile adulteries and murders.”[35][36] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”[37] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict “feasted on immorality” and that he was “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest”, accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and was said to have sponsored orgies.[38] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold.

Thanks Wikipedia!

[donmeaker]

Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[27] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he “liked to have a collection of women”. According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis[28], “they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse.” According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was “a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held”.[29]He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I would go with the homosexual Leo X.”

Leo X was not a homosexual.

“Thanks Wikipedia!”

And no one who wants to get history right should rely on Wikipedia. Anti-Catholics, however, use it all the time.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[27]”

This is an example of why people interested in getting history right cannot rely on Wikipedia.

1) We know that John XII lived a scandalous life, but there is every indication that the stories about him and his behavior became rediculously exagerrated.

2) Patrologia Latina is over 200 volumes long. How can it be listed simply as “Source”? Source where? Which volume for crying out loud?

3) Malachi Martin is then listed as a source. Martin, a one time Catholic priest, became a sedevacantist bishop apparently and made his living from publishing books about supposed scandals in the Vatican (which was obviously self-serving).

[vladimir998]

Phony stories about Leo X have been circulated for centuries. Here’s one:

“It was Pope Leo X who made the most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of the Church. His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican’s false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the puerile nature of the Christian religion. At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of “seven intimates” (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate. Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted: “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.””

Here’s the truth:

“So where did this quote originate? Skeptics claim Leo said this to a member of his entourage who later attributed
the quote to him. However, the quote has now been attributed to the 16th century satirist and playwright, John
Bale. John Bale joined the Protestant movement after becoming disenchanted with the corruption of the Catholic
church. He wrote many parodies in which he openly expressed his disdain of papal abuse. One of his satirical
works known as The Pageant of the Popes is the actual source of the quote in question (paraphrased in modern
English for the reader’s convenience):

“For on a time when a cardinal Bembus did move a question out of the Gospel, the Pope gave him a very
contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testify enough how profitable that fable of Christ hath been
to us and our company.” (Pageant of the Popes Page 179)

CONCLUSION: This quote is from a fictional 16th century work written as a parody. Presenting this as a
legitimate quote would be as absurd as attributing a line from a Shakespearian play to the real life character
whom an actor depicted.”

[donmeaker]

I figure that Wikipedia is close enough to backing for blog posts.

[vladimir998]

Close enough only counts in checkers and hand grenades...isn’t that how the saying goes?

[donmeaker]

horseshoes and hand grenades....But tactical nuclear weapons are pretty good with a close miss too.

[donmeaker]

So how corrupt would a pope have to be before the institution he represents loses its authority? How many children diddled? How many illegimate children before the “Infailible in faith and morals” is no longer valid?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“So how corrupt would a pope have to be before the institution he represents loses its authority?”

No pope’s evils could corrupt Christ’s Church because Christ is the founder and not the pope. Just as Christ is always holy, so is the Church - no matter how inadequate the earthly leader of the Church is.

“How many children diddled? How many illegimate children before the “Infailible in faith and morals” is no longer valid?”

No amount of sin on the part of a pope would stop the Holy Spirit from accomplishing His work. The pope’s infallibility has to do with his office and the negative protection of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with his personal behavior. That’s why even the worst popes never changed Church doctrine, never taught ever as if it were the faith and never violated papal infallibility.

[GonzoII]

Related: 5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them