The Mystery and power of God’s grace!

[Arch Stanton]

What errors be specific!

I am wondering if Josheb believes some of the 'errors' include the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic/Orthodox.

 

[Josheb]

Would you include the abolishment of the ministerial priesthood?

Thank you!

That depends on what you mean by "ministerial priesthood."

The New Testament Church did not have priests who wore special robes or garments designating them as having a special role. That was completely done away with. As the Church moved out of the synagogue outer courts into people's homes those distinctions were discarded. Ephesians 4 tells us there were positions of authority (apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher and pastor) and it should be understood that list is not exhaustive; there are many "offices," "positions," or "roles" Christ gave the Church (such as administrator, or deacon/elder/presbyter). The only time Paul ever mentioned the word "priest" (Gk.: leitourgon)in his epistles was in the letter to the Romans.

Romans 15:15-16
But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

The only other time Paul ever used the term was in reference to the congregants of Philippi ministering to him. So we see an apostle could play a priestly, ministerial role but otherwise there is no mention of a priesthood. The same applies to the mentions of "pastor" (Gk.: poimenas).

What we find is the "priesthood of believers," which comes from Peter's statement ALL Christians are royal priests (1 Pet. 2:9). I'm not sure I have space in a single post to expound on the whole-Bible perspective here because the phrase "royal priest" goes all the way through New and Old Testaments at least as far back as Melchizedek, the first person we read mentioned as a priest and king. Teh civil and religious rule got divided when Moses met God at the burning bush and refused to be the sole spokesman for God. Aaron became the forerunner of the Levitical priesthood, a lesser priesthood than that of the Melchizedekian Order, according to the author of Hebrews. When God freed the Hebrews from Egypt He told them "you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," (Ex. 19:6), and God established the Judges. The Judges were a re-establishment of the unified roles of religious and civic rule. Only Deborah seems to have fulfilled the role well (which is curious for the belief in an only-male leadership held by many Christians). Because of the Judges failures the people of God asked for an earthly king, a king like all the other nations (1 Sam. 8) and God took it as an offence, a rejection of Him as their king. God told them the kind of king they wanted would not be a good thing and because of their incessance, He gave them a king. The entire monarchy was an offense to God and this perversion separating the priestly role from the royal role persisted in Judaic theology for centuries until Christ came. Jesus is another reconstitution of the two roles. He is both King of all kings (royalty), and the Great High Priest in the Order of Mel. Those in Christ are royal priests. ALL of us.

Now I just blew through a pile of scripture from Old to New. I am happy to elaborate if there are any questions but the above should be sufficient for understanding any extra-biblical thought, doctrine, or practice that contradicts scripture should be avoided and is not to be trusted (or obeyed).

That being said, one of my degrees is in sociology and another in social psychology and, in the process, I have a good dose of anthropology thrown in there. I completely understand that as people gather into larger and larger groups the need for unified structure is normal. It is necessary to establish common grounds for orthodoxy and deviance, thought is organized into doctrines and ritualized into practices, and positions of governance are established accordingly. Even though it was not the practice of the New Testament Church to have one person governing all others, and definitely not their practice to have one person responsible for everyone else's spiritual growth, it is understandable a local group of congregations would want to have shared knowledge, doctrine, and practices and have some consistent between their local congregations and those of other locales. The gospel spread very quickly so the institutionalization of Christianity is completely understandable.

However, the institutionalization is extra-biblical, a practice openly eschewed by the New Testament Church and contrary to the premise of a royal priesthood constituted of all Christians. There is most definitely no precedent for wearing special robes and backwards collars, and much less support for clerical celibacy (Peter was married). We all know the clerical celibacy bit finds its origins in Augustine's (personal views, struggles, and practice) and wasn't instituted in the RCC for several hundred years after Augie.

So..... if you mean would I abolish the ministerial priesthood of celibate priests who wear their collars backward and are solely responsible for everyone else's spiritual health then my answer will be a loud, unequivocal, and unabashed, "No!" but if I am asked if congregations should have pastors, teachers and others in roles of leadership and recognized as such then my answer is a whole-hearted, affirmative and equally unequivocal, "Yes!" and I say that having read and evaluated alternatives like the house-church movement (Viola's "Pagan Christianity" is worth a read). I think their conclusions are unnecessary, but often valid.

 

[Josheb]

What errors be specific!

I assume that's meant for me since I was the one posting the "godless errors" comment.

For one, the practice of celibacy among clergy is not a Biblical practice and it contradicts the precedent set by Peter, who was supposedly, according to RCC doctrine, the first Pope. Peter was married. If the first Pope was married then shouldn't all Popes be married (unless God leads them to be single)? It is well established the roots of clerical celibacy are found in Augustine, a man who kept at least two concubines, was adulterous during his betrothal, renegging on that betrothal and eventually writing how celibacy was best for him in his role as Bishop due to the struggles he personally had with devotion to God. His practice was not required and wasn't formalized in the RCC until the early 12th century. In other words, for 1200 years it was okay for priests to marry.

And then it wasn't.

This requirement flies into direct contradiction with the very first command God ever spoke to humanity,

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Liberties with the text have to be taken to separate biological procreation from spiritual propagation in order to justify an institutionally celibate clergy. Paul, not Peter, was single (and presumably celibate) and he did tell his Corinthian reader it was better to remain single, but he most likely did so due to first century conditions of Christian persecution. He most certainly was not advocating all priests, ministers, pastors, etc. never marry and never have children. That would contradict his support and affirmation for Priscilla and Aquilla.

As I've already covered, the practice of selling "indulgences" or absolution for sins is ungodly. It is wholly without precedent in scripture and completely inconsistent with centuries of early RCC thought, doctrine, and practice. In other words, like clerical celibacy, the practice of indulgence selling contradicts externally with scripture and internally with prior RCCism.

There are many others and it's not really up to me to tell you if you claim to consider scripture and authority and believe anything contradicting it is not to be trusted. You should already know the ungodly practices and not try to shift the onus on me away from your own responsibility to know, acknowledge, and post accordingly. The veneration of Mary would be an example, but far less egregious than the RCC's institutional acceptance and implicit condoning of aberrant and abhorrent lives of some of the Popes, and perhaps the most egregious of practices is the murder of those deemed heretic, including those of the Protestant Reformation. There's no New Testament basis for any of it.

It is ungodly.

 

[Arch Stanton]

That depends on what you mean by "ministerial priesthood."

In the Old Testament, there were THREE levels of Priests:
High Priest [Aaron]
Levitical Priesthood [Ex 30:30; Lev 5:5-6; Numbers 15:27-28]
General priesthood of the rest of the believers. [Ex 19:6]

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25),
The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15; John 20:23; 2 Cor 5:18)
The General Priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

The New Testament Church did not have priests who wore special robes or garments designating them as having a special role.

I am not concerned about what they wore. In regards to Peter being married, celibacy is not a dogma or a doctrine, but it is a discipline that can be changed.

Thank you for your response!!!

 

[donadams]

I am wondering if Josheb believes some of the 'errors' include the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic/Orthodox.

Who knows but how do you have a high priest unless there are low priests in obedience to Him?

Thanks

 

[donadams]

I assume that's meant for me since I was the one posting the "godless errors" comment.

For one, the practice of celibacy among clergy is not a Biblical practice and it contradicts the precedent set by Peter, who was supposedly, according to RCC doctrine, the first Pope. Peter was married. If the first Pope was married then shouldn't all Popes be married (unless God leads them to be single)? It is well established the roots of clerical celibacy are found in Augustine, a man who kept at least two concubines, was adulterous during his betrothal, renegging on that betrothal and eventually writing how celibacy was best for him in his role as Bishop due to the struggles he personally had with devotion to God. His practice was not required and wasn't formalized in the RCC until the early 12th century. In other words, for 1200 years it was okay for priests to marry.

And then it wasn't.

This requirement flies into direct contradiction with the very first command God ever spoke to humanity,

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Liberties with the text have to be taken to separate biological procreation from spiritual propagation in order to justify an institutionally celibate clergy. Paul, not Peter, was single (and presumably celibate) and he did tell his Corinthian reader it was better to remain single, but he most likely did so due to first century conditions of Christian persecution. He most certainly was not advocating all priests, ministers, pastors, etc. never marry and never have children. That would contradict his support and affirmation for Priscilla and Aquilla.

As I've already covered, the practice of selling "indulgences" or absolution for sins is ungodly. It is wholly without precedent in scripture and completely inconsistent with centuries of early RCC thought, doctrine, and practice. In other words, like clerical celibacy, the practice of indulgence selling contradicts externally with scripture and internally with prior RCCism.

There are many others and it's not really up to me to tell you if you claim to consider scripture and authority and believe anything contradicting it is not to be trusted. You should already know the ungodly practices and not try to shift the onus on me away from your own responsibility to know, acknowledge, and post accordingly. The veneration of Mary would be an example, but far less egregious than the RCC's institutional acceptance and implicit condoning of aberrant and abhorrent lives of some of the Popes, and perhaps the most egregious of practices is the murder of those deemed heretic, including those of the Protestant Reformation. There's no New Testament basis for any of it.

It is ungodly.

Celibacy is not a doctrine it’s a discipline and disciplines change

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, 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 inherit everlasting life.

Reflects celibacy

 

[Arch Stanton]

Who knows but how do you have a high priest unless there are low priests in obedience to Him?

Thanks

I hope post 44 clears it up. Even the ECF's minister to The Church.

 

[Josheb]

The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15; John 20:23; 2 Cor 5:18)

That's hogwash. Nothing more than Roman Catholic indoctrination. NOTHING in those first century texts looked anything like the RCC and no one in the first century Church would have understood any of those texts in the manner ensconced in RCC clergy. It is troubling that those texts would be twisted to justify such practice. Elders of the James 5:14-15 Church are not priests. They did not attend seminary, they did not hold special privilege, they were expected to marry and be good stewards of their family (and if they didn't, they couldn't be elders), and they most certainly did not wear vestments. The "us" in 2 Corinthians is all believers in Christ, not priests. ALL of "us" have been reconciled to God through Christ. The depravity of abuse twisting that verse into a RCC priest is self-disqualifying. That verse should have been read and its exegesis verified before posting it. The same applies the John's gospel reference; ANY disciple of Christ can and should forgive sinces and they most definitely should not collect money for doing so.

I am not concerned about what they wore.

You should be.

What a person wears has no bearing on his/her eternal disposition, inherent ability to minister the gospel, nor his privilege to administer "sacraments."

Which reminds me. We can all lay the perversion called the "Eucharist" on the altar of RCCism. The Lord's supper was a supper, not thimbles of wine or grape juice and wafers of bread.

In regards to Peter being married, celibacy is not a dogma or a doctrine, but it is a discipline that can be changed.

Show me a married priest and we'll talk.

Thank you for your response!!!

You're welcome.

Let me reiterate: I have no particular axe to grind. I can be just as critical of Protestantism (or the Orthodox). None of us should defend the unjustifiable. I'm not RCC-ragging.

 

[Josheb]

Celibacy is not a doctrine it’s a discipline and disciplines change

Show me a married priest with children and we'll talk.

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, 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 inherit everlasting life.

Reflects celibacy

Baloney. Peter was married. So too were priscilla and Aquilla. Deacons were expected to be good stewards of their family as a witness to their ability as deacons. There's no justification for the liberties taken with scripture.

 

[donadams]

More info

Ministerial priesthood: “apostles & their successors, and those they ordain” “low priests” under the authority of Christ the “high priest”!

With priestly ministry:
Mk 3:14 “ordained”
Matt 22:14 Jn 15:16 “chosen” “ordained”
Jn 20:21 “sent by Christ with His authority”
Jn 20:23 “power to forgive sins”
Acts 1:8 “anointing with power”
acts 1:15-26 “ministry / bishop”
Acts 2:38-39 “administered sacraments”
acts 14:23 “ordained”
Acts 16:4 “ordained “
Rom 15:16 “minister / sanctify”
1 cor 9:14 “ordained”
1 Tim 2:7 “ordained”
1 Tim 3:1-2 “bishop”
1 Tim 4:14 “priest” “priestly ministry”
Phil 1:1 “bishops deacons”
James 5:14 “anointing with oil”

The ministerial priesthood acts in “the person of Christ” so it is Christ who acts thru them vicariously.
2 cor 2:10 Jn 15:5 eph 5:24

Christ reformed the mosaic covenant into the new and eternal covenant!

The new covenant was a reformation of the mosaic covenant so it has many similarities. Heb 9:10
Heb 10:9

Old Israel:

Ex 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

New Israel:

1 pet 2:5-9
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Gal 6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Apostles / bishops were ordained priests by Jesus Christ at the last supper: 1 cor 11:24-26
do this in memory of me. offer this in memory of me, the Passover was a sacrifice. Ex 12:27 1 cor 5:6-8

Worship:

Adoration: rev 7-12
Propitiatory reparation: Jn 1:29
rom 3:25 1 Jn 2:2 1 Jn 4:10
1 Jn 2:2 1 Jn 4:10
Thanksgiving: Phil 4:6
Petition: Phil 4:6

Spirit and truth:

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Offering the eternal sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of all men!


There are two parts of the priesthood in the new covenant church:

In the order of Melchisedec,
Christ high priest:

His apostles low priests: or
Ministerial priesthood:

and the royal priesthood of Christians.

Christ is Eternal priest:

Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Christ is High priest:

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Low priests / priesthood:

There must be low priests in the same order for a high priest to be over them. And the word in scripture “priesthood” is plural.

Jn 20:21-23 apostles have authority to forgive sins.

Christians Required to Confess you’re sins.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Lamb of God:

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 cor 5:7 …For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Christ is Eternal priest:

Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The office and nature of a priest is to offer sacrifice, so an eternal priest offers an eternal sacrifice!


Christ is High priest:

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Low priests / priesthood:

There must be low priests in the same order for a high priest to be over them. And the word in scripture “priesthood” is plural.

The holy sacrifice of Christ:

Holy sacrifice of Christ is offered eternally, the office of a priest is to offer sacrifice, Christ is eternal priest so He offers an eternal sacrifice! Both by the high priest and the low priesthood.

once for all sacrifice of Christ:

once bloody on the cross and for all time unbloody sacrifice, pure offering or clean oblation.

Jesus Christ at the last supper ordained the apostles as priests in the order of melchisedec, to offer His eternal sacrifice as he commanded them; do this in memory of me.

Do this in remembrance of me!

Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:25
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Prophecy of the new covenant church!

Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

A pure offering:
A Clean oblation:
An Unbloody sacrifice:

Only a priest offers sacrifice!

 

[Arch Stanton]

That's hogwash. Nothing more than Roman Catholic indoctrination. NOTHING in those first century texts looked anything like the RCC and no one in the first century Church would have understood any of those texts in the manner ensconced in RCC clergy.

Do you not see the Catholic Church in the early centuries? The ECF's? Hogwash, really?

Ignatius of Antioch​

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

Which reminds me. We can all lay the perversion called the "Eucharist" on the altar of RCCism. The Lord's supper was a supper,

and it was not fulfilled [The Last Supper] at the table.

Show me a married priest and we'll talk.

There are several.... you are confusing the Roman Rite with some of the others .... 6 Rites [24 total]

Let me reiterate: I have no particular axe to grind. I can be just as critical of Protestantism (or the Orthodox). None of us should defend the unjustifiable. I'm not RCC-ragging.

Wouldn't that fall under your own personal, fallible, interpretations of scripture?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Show me a married priest with children and we'll talk.

Priests that come over from the Anglican Church can stay married.... once their spouse dies, they stay celibate.

Thousands of married Catholic priests serve in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[donadams]

Show me a married priest with children and we'll talk.

Baloney. Peter was married. So too were priscilla and Aquilla. Deacons were expected to be good stewards of their family as a witness to their ability as deacons. There's no justification for the liberties taken with scripture.

There are 13 rites in the church some of them all the priests are married, any Anglican priest who is married converts is a married priest as well, is it good to send missionaries who are likely to be martyred when they have a wife and children?
When a man is dying and needs a priest in the middle of the night is it good that he has a wife and children to leave behind?

Paul was not married that’s one!

 

[Josheb]

Priests that come over from the Anglican Church can stay married.... once their spouse dies, they stay celibate.

Yes, it was nice of the Pope to permit that because for centuries the RCC refused to do so and viewed the Anglican Church with contempt. Arch, it does not help your case to try to find exceptions to the rule. Because they are the exception, the argument is one of extremes and that is always and everywhere fallacious.

Thousands of married Catholic priests serve in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

There are 13 rites in the church some of them all the priests are married, any Anglican priest who is married converts is a married priest as well, is it good to send missionaries who are likely to be martyred when they have a wife and children?
When a man is dying and needs a priest in the middle of the night is it good that he has a wife and children to leave behind?

Another argument from extremes. Furthermore, they are not RCC. The recognize the authority of the Pope but have their own religious tradition, rites, and liturgy. They are not ROMAN Catholic; they are EASTERN Catholic.

Why is it so difficult for you two to accts the facts? If the RCC tells ANYONE they cannot marry that's a problem. The following is found at the Vatican's own website.

It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline........................​

​

In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected. In Session XXIV on 11 November 1563, the Fathers upheld the prohibition of clerical marriage (c. 9), adding (concerning the difficulties): For God would not deny the gift to those who duly ask for it (the gift of chastity), nor allow us to be tempted beyond our strength. They also rejected the thesis that the marital state should be considered better than that of celibacy (c. l0). The Council, in Session XXIII, also voted in favour of founding seminaries to prepare candidates from their youth for the celibate life. The discipline of continence by this time had meant in practice that only an unmarried man would be ordained. This is also shown in the discussions of the Council, for example when one theologian, Desiderius de S. Martino, concerned by the shortage of priests, suggested the possibility of ordaining married men provided the wives gave consent and that they and their husbands lived in continence. But the measure was not deemed expedient. ​

​

The decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy. The Enlightenment brought fresh assaults against clerical celibacy and after the First Vatican Council, the Old Catholics, separating themselves from Rome, abolished the rule. Despite the pressures on the Catholic Church to relax the law of celibacy, it has always resisted. Pope Benedict XV declared, in his Consistorial Allocution of 16 December 1920, that the Church considered celibacy to be of such importance that it could never abolish it. Following Vatican II, the Church has made an exception for married deacons of mature age and for individual former non-Catholic clergymen, following a precedent set by Pope Pius XII.​

Paul was not married that’s one!

Yes, and Paul's commentary was explicitly stated to be his personal view and NOT a command from God.
.

​

 

[Josheb]

Do you not see the Catholic Church in the early centuries? The ECF's?

What is the subject of this discussion?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Yes, it was nice of the Pope to permit that because for centuries the RCC refused to do so and viewed the Anglican Church with contempt. Arch, it does not help your case to try to find exceptions to the rule. Because they are the exception, the argument is one of extremes and that is always and everywhere fallacious.

Your argument is meaningless.... why would it concern a non-Catholic if priests are married or not? That is their choice to become a priest.

Another argument from extremes. Furthermore, they are not RCC.

Same Church Josheb.....

https://media.ascensionpress.com/2019/01/21/the-other-23-catholic-churches-and-why-they-exist/

Yes, and Paul's commentary was explicitly stated to be his personal view and NOT a command from God.

Whatever you bind....

 

[Arch Stanton]

What is the subject of this discussion?

Show me a married priest with children and we'll talk.

 

[donadams]

Yes, it was nice of the Pope to permit that because for centuries the RCC refused to do so and viewed the Anglican Church with contempt. Arch, it does not help your case to try to find exceptions to the rule. Because they are the exception, the argument is one of extremes and that is always and everywhere fallacious.


Another argument from extremes. Furthermore, they are not RCC. The recognize the authority of the Pope but have their own religious tradition, rites, and liturgy. They are not ROMAN Catholic; they are EASTERN Catholic.

Why is it so difficult for you two to accts the facts? If the RCC tells ANYONE they cannot marry that's a problem. The following is found at the Vatican's own website.

It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline........................​

​

In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected. In Session XXIV on 11 November 1563, the Fathers upheld the prohibition of clerical marriage (c. 9), adding (concerning the difficulties): For God would not deny the gift to those who duly ask for it (the gift of chastity), nor allow us to be tempted beyond our strength. They also rejected the thesis that the marital state should be considered better than that of celibacy (c. l0). The Council, in Session XXIII, also voted in favour of founding seminaries to prepare candidates from their youth for the celibate life. The discipline of continence by this time had meant in practice that only an unmarried man would be ordained. This is also shown in the discussions of the Council, for example when one theologian, Desiderius de S. Martino, concerned by the shortage of priests, suggested the possibility of ordaining married men provided the wives gave consent and that they and their husbands lived in continence. But the measure was not deemed expedient. ​

​

The decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy. The Enlightenment brought fresh assaults against clerical celibacy and after the First Vatican Council, the Old Catholics, separating themselves from Rome, abolished the rule. Despite the pressures on the Catholic Church to relax the law of celibacy, it has always resisted. Pope Benedict XV declared, in his Consistorial Allocution of 16 December 1920, that the Church considered celibacy to be of such importance that it could never abolish it. Following Vatican II, the Church has made an exception for married deacons of mature age and for individual former non-Catholic clergymen, following a precedent set by Pope Pius XII.​

Yes, and Paul's commentary was explicitly stated to be his personal view and NOT a command from God.
.

​

They are not told they cannot marry, I was Married, my parents were married

 

[donadams]

Celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline and discipline is governed by human wisdom, the church is not a democracy, you don’t have a vote, it is a kingdom, the kingdom of God on earth, monks, hermits etc always had the law of celibacy

All for God and the proclamation of the gospel, not devided loyalties!

Amen?

 

[Josheb]

Your argument is meaningless....

Jesus was not speaking to Catholics or priests. Neither existed in the Church when he spoke the words empowering his disciples to forgive others. It is your arguments that are meaningless. They are meaningless because they presuppose the RCC and emply post hoc argument to justify the presupposition. It's not scripture and it is not rational.

No, the discussion is not about you showing me married Roman Catholic priests. The discussion is about the "mystery and power of God's grace," and it proves impossible to have with Roman Catholics because of their ideological idolatry elevating RCCism above scripture as written, plainly read. On this occasion the hugely digressive tangent of RCC practice of clerical celibacy proves it. I was asked for examples of RCCism gone awry and I have listed several, ONE of which is clerical celibacy. The mystery and power of God's grace is 1) shown despite that wholly unscriptural inanity and 2) no Christian needs the RCC to have that in their life.

Union with God thru Christ the mediator of the covenant!

Right!

No RCC needed. Just Jesus.

They are not told they cannot marry,

The evidence proves otherwise. I provided a link to a website from the Holy See himself explicitly stating the Roman Catholic Church considers clerical celibacy to be of such importance that it could never abolish it.

I was Married, my parents were married

Are you and your parents Roman Catholic priests?

Celibacy is not a doctrine

You mean "Doctrine" with a capital "D". As far as small "d" doctrine, or teaching goes, it is a doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church teaches its priests they cannot marry and it teaches its congregants priests do not wed. Wiki:

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, in general, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate, and marriage after priestly ordination. Throughout the Catholic Church, East as well as West, a priest may not marry. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, a married priest is one who married before being ordained. The Catholic Church considers the law of clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline.​

I can read, too, don. I understand the difference between Doctrine and Discipline, and I understand the difference between Doctrine and doctrine. Both of you are playing fast and loose with language and arguing fallacies of ambiguity and false equivalence. The Simply Catholic website states,

"A distinction must be made from the outset: some Catholic priests can be married and some can’t. This distinction is possible because there is nothing in the Deposit of the Faith that prohibits priests from being married. There is a long-standing practice, though, to require celibacy of Latin (or Roman) rite priests."​

If the logic of those three sentences is followed then 1) some priests CANNOT marry, 2) there's nothing in body of revealed truth in the scriptures and sacred tradition prohibiting them from marrying, 3) the practice is a long-standing requirement. In other words, Scripture does not say any such thing, but it is nonetheless a requirement, and they CANNOT marry. Now it was either earlier in this thread or in another thread where we have traded posts recently that you, don, agreed: anything that contradicts scripture should not be trusted. Here is an official Catholic source stating something not found in scripture (or tradition) is prohibitively required. Please do not hide behind "discipline." It is required.

Yes, it is true,

[i/]"In the Eastern rites, celibacy is generally not required — although it is required for bishops. Additionally, you will find married Catholic priests who come, for the most part, from one of the following scenarios: former Protestant ministers who have been ordained as priests under provisions approved by Pope St. John Paul II, former Anglican priests who have been received into the Catholic Church and been ordained Catholic priests after erection of Anglican Ordinariates by Pope Benedict XVI, or Orthodox priests who are received into the Catholic Church."[/i]​

But we're not talking about Eastern Rites, and Anglicans. We are talking specifically about the Roman Catholic Church. It is disingenuous of you both to try to move the goalposts.

....but a discipline and discipline is governed by human wisdom, the church is not a democracy, you don’t have a vote, it is a kingdom, the kingdom of God on earth, monks, hermits etc always had the law of celibacy

I know.

All for God and the proclamation of the gospel, not divided loyalties!

Unless you're Martin Luther, John Calvin, or one of the early Catholic Reformers, in which case you might get yourself excommunicated or murdered for trying to get aberrant and abhorrent practice changed for the sake of the gospel and unity.

Amen?

I am an amiable guy. I have no axe to grind with the RCC, but RCs should not go around telling non-RCs they are THE only true Chruch without error.

That is a lie from the pit of hell, and it turns off those who might come to salvation (even in the RCC ). Protestants would not exist if it weren't for the malfeasance of the RCC. You got no one to blame but yourselves.

And just so you know I'm an equal opportunity praiser and an equal opportunity critic, I've always thought it odd that a Christian discussion board would sanction sectarian apologetics whereby RCs or Anglicans/Episcopalians or Lutherans or Baptists, etc., etc., try to proselytize other Christians (those already saved from sin by the propitiation of Christ) to become like them (sectarian). It can be very functional and edifying to have boards where like-minded Christians can discuss their cinterests in-house. It is quite another thing to think making everyone alike that's a problem. I grew up a member of the Episcopal Church. It is a joke among (some) Episcopalians and former Episcopalians that when asked, "Are you a Christian?" the answer is likely, "Yes, I'm Episcopalian," as if attending an Episcopal church, or being a member of one, or self-identifying as such is what makes a person Christian. Being Episcopal does not make one a Christian. Being Catholic does not make one a Christian. Jesus is what makes us Christians. ~isms be damned.



There are seven billion people on the planet and no two of them are alike. The image of God is born in each uniquely, seven billion different ways. For those in Christ (approximately 2.4 billion people) the image of God is born twice over in 2.4 additionally different ways. God made it that way. God made it that way AND He expects unity.

Ephesians 4:11-16
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

• Equipped for works of service,
• Building up the body of Christ,
• Attaining unity of the faith,
• Attaining knowledge of God's Son,
• Attaining maturity and the fulness of Christ, becoming undeterrable,
• Speaking the truth in love,

Growing in all aspects into Christ, fitted together according to the proper working of individual parts causing the growth of the whole for self-edification in love.

Yes?

(think before answering)
.