Obligatory Celibacy

I do understand the arguments by Catholic as Agnes stated.

The Problem is that Catholic connects the celibacy with the priesthood while Bible doesn't connect them each other.
Even the first so-called Pope Peter was married.
Many Popes were married before.
Many priests married until 1139-1170 AD. Catholic priests had not only one wife, but sometimes many concubines as well ( Read this:

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html) ( This is just one illustration easily found, but you can find some more reliable ones easily)
http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy_2.htm


http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

http://www.gerrior.net/Resources/SexAndTheBible/01.CatholicCelibacy.htm

But I believe the nature of Celibacy came from Babylonian Idol Worshipping priests.

By keeping Celibacy, RCC always advertize that their priests gave up so many things belonging to this world, so that they may devote themselves to Christ only. It is a good way to keep the hypocrisy. But there are so many problems behind the curtain.

The Associated Press quoted a police report as saying Father Guinan had had an intimate relationship with a former bookkeeper at another church.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/us/10priest.html?th&emc=th

 

And your point is?

I won't twist Holy Scripture Curtis, as long as you don't add to Holy Scripture. Now Curtis, show us from Holy Scripture where Peter's wife is mentioned.


-

 

As we’ve determined, Scripture no where states that all Bishops must be married, Scripture simply states that they can be married but once. It is not a statement to the effect that every Bishop must have a wife, for even St. Paul himself did not have a wife, for him to demand marriage would be hypocrisy. St. Paul is saying that no one is to become a Bishop who has been married more than once. St. Paul explains why the Latin rite , which is the most common rite in America, of the Catholic Church has a celibate priesthood…

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)​

Where in Scripture is Peter’s wife mentioned? All I read is his wife’s mother. One can still have a mother-in-law even after the wife has passed on…

And still are…Oriental Churches which are still in communion with the Holy See have married priests. Even today there are instances where married Lutherans and Episcopalians pastors and priests who’ve swam the Tiber, who are now RC priests…

What you believe is irrelevant. Our Lord was celibate and He said that those who renounce marriage do so for the sake of the kingdom…see Matthew 19…

And they are…?

And your point is…?


-

 

Nice dodge. Try again. Seems like I asked three questions, and made no definate statements.

 

You don't understand the argument here. I don't object Celibacy itself. But is it possible that a Catholic Priests marry a woman if he wants to?
If the priest change his mind and wants to marry a woman, can he still be allowed to remain as a priest? I point out this as an example of COMPULSORY OR OBLIGATORY Celibacy.

1 Corinthians 9:
5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

Mark 1:
30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

I said I don't object to the Celibacy itself! But if is Compulosry and Obligation,RCC is imposing another human burden to the Clergy system, then it will cause many problems.

 

Wow, it took me a while to find that verse, but you posted it first. Simon Peter had a wife. Now perhaps Angus can answer my questions.

Thanx, Eliyahu,

 

I’m not making the claim that Peter had no wife…that’s ridicules…I’m asking where in Scripture do we see Peter’s wife mentioned.

Again Mark 1:30 is only mentioning Peter’s mother-in-law, not Peter’s wife per say.

1 Corinthians 9:5 is close, I’ll give you that, but my KJV also mentions sister…power to lead about a sister, a wife and other apostles…The verse says nothing about Peters wife…only the power to lead others, as Peter leads about a sister(which could mean anybody's sister), a wife(which could mean anybody's wife), as well as other apostles…Try again...

If anything I wonder why in 1 Corinthians is Peter singled out as the leader...why not John or anyother Apostle?
-

 

Here is my own translation:

1 Corinthians 9:
5 Don't we have the right to take a wife along with us who is a sister ( in the Lord), as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

Interpretation:

Don't we have the right to take a wife who is a sister believing in the Lord, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers ( like James, Jude, Jose) and Cephas( Peter) ?

Don't you understand yet that Cephas carried his wife when he was preaching the Gospel?

Apparently there are 2 words : adelphen( sister) and guinaika (wife) in the same sentence.

If you try to blind yourself about the Bible, then the whole of your life will be blinded against the blessings from God.

You better consult with Catholic people more on this so that they may invent an interpretation on it by distorting the Words of God.

 

The sentence tells us these:

1) Apostles had the wives and carried them for the minsitry
2) Lord had the brothers and they also had the wives and carried them for the ministry.
3) Cephas ( Kefa=Peter) had a wife and carried her for the ministry.

Do you want to say that Peter was the Pope indeed because he is singled out?

Well, this thread is not for the issue of Pope ior Papacy.
Shortly I can tell you, Peter was rebuked by Paul ( Gal 2:14), and he was singled out there too. Did Peter make a mistake because he didn't carry the chair so that he could do many things ( with magic power ex cathera) ?

But the order of the Brothers mentioned in Gal 2:9 may have some meaning if you pursue such aspect, James, Peter, John
You can see the leadership of James in Acts 15 as well.

Remember Peter called himself simply an elder ( 1 Peter 5:1). He didn't instruct the elders by claiming that I am a special Elder or I am an Arch-Elder, or I am the POPE.

Remember Peter called Paul who rebuked him, Brother (2 Pet 3:15)

 

I already posted this but for the convenience I post here some excerpts:

Seventh Century
France: documents show that the majority of priest were married.

Eighth Century

St. Boniface reported to the pope that in Germany almost no bishop or priest was celibate.

Ninth Century
836-Council of Aix-la-Chapelle openly admitted that abortions and infanticide took place in convents and monasteries to cover up activities of uncelibate clerics.

St. Ulrich, a holy bishop, argued from scripture and common sense that the only way to purify the church from the worst excesses of celibacy was to permit priests to marry.

Eleventh Century
1045-Pope Boniface IX dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry.

1074-Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: ‘priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.’

1095-Pope Urban II had priests’ wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned.


Popes who were married
St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

 

Fourteenth Century
Bishop Pelagio complains that women are still ordained and hearing confessions.


Fifteenth Century
Transition; 50% of priests are married and accepted by the people


Popes who were the sons of other popes, other clergy
Name of Pope Papacy Son of

St. Damascus I366-348St. Lorenzo, priest

St. Innocent I401-417Anastasius I

Boniface418-422 son of a priest

St. Felix483-492son of a priest

Anastasius II496-498son of a priest

St. Agapitus I535-536 Gordiaous, priest

St. Silverus536-537St. Homidas, pope

Deusdedit882-884son of a priest

Boniface VI 896-896Hadrian, bishop

John XI 931-935 Pope Sergius III

John XV989-996Leo, priest

Popes who had illegitimate children after 1139

Innocent VIII 1484-1492 several children

Alexander VI 1492-1503 several children

Julius1503-15133 daughters

Paul III1534-15493 sons, 1 daughter

Pius IV1559-15653 sons

Gregory XIII1572-1585 1 son


History sources:
Oxford Dictionary of Popes; H.C. Lea History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church 1957; E. Schillebeeckx The Church with a Human Face 1985; J. McSorley Outline History of the Church by Centuries 1957; F.A.Foy (Ed.) 1990 Catholic Almanac 1989; D.L. Carmody The Double Cross - Ordination, Abortion and Catholic Feminism 1986; P.K. Jewtt The Ordination of Women 1980; A.F. Ide God's Girls - Ordination of Women in the Early Christian & Gnostic Churches 1986; E. Schüssler Fiorenza In Memory of Her 1984; P. DeRosa Vicars of Christ 1988.

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm


Question : Were these popes damned to go to the Hell?

 

Following Christ's example? Christ never committed sodomy upon a child or anyone else. That's not celibacy!

I, too, have a problem with priests sexually abusing children and not being defrocked, but having to give up their priesthood if they get married.

According to the RCC, Peter was the first "pope". Since he was married, and other popes and priests were married, who gave some "pope" the authority - someplace along the line - to declare that priests and popes must remain single???

Paul said it was better to marry than to burn (with desire). Do the priests who are sexual offenders think they are following the command to remain celibate just because they do not marry???

I'm certainly glad that MY church would not cover-up a sexual perversion such as this. Preachers may commit sexual sins (and some do), but they are kicked out of the pulpit posthaste - not allowed to continue with a slap on the wrist - and they CERTAINLY would not settle a case of abuse out of court for millions of dollars. To me, a church that would do this (protect the guilty and pay off the victim) has no right to be called a church, for Jesus Christ would be ashamed of it.

They were if they did not call on the Lord Jesus Christ to come into their hearts and be their Lord and Savior!

 

Eliyahu: I’m not arguing that Peter was never married…it’s obvious that he was married…Scripture on the other hand never explicitly mentions Peter’s wife directly…1 Corinthians 9:5 says…a sister, a wife and other apostles…if it’s a version of the bible issue, then so be it…

Peter was accused of Paul for acting hypocritically. To simply act hypocritical is to say one thing and act contrary. Verses 11-14 necessarily implies that while Peter’s actions were wrong…his teachings were all the while correct…

-

 

Mark 1:30 and 1 Cor 9:5 are enough to prove Peter had a wife who was a sister in the Lord. If you cannot believe it, I would shake my head.


You must recognize that the Obligatory Celibacy was not consistant thru the history.

 

Duh…It’s not a celibacy issue…it’s a lack of celibacy which is the issue…Hundreds of Thousands of priests have lived a celibate life and have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom and have never committed sodomy…Matthew 19.

Christ gave the Church the authority to bind and loose…in addition, celibacy is not a Church doctrine…it’s a discipline, so it can be changed…

…again, Christ says that those that renounce marriage do so for the sake of the kingdom…I have repeated this over and over and over…Celibacy is a gift and a calling that isn’t for everyone.

A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and kids! St. Paul understood this in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34: For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided

Christ established a Church…priests and Popes will fail and disappoint people, look at Judas as an example, chosen by Christ to be a disciple, but later betrayed our Lord with a kiss…point is that Christ promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church and a few weeds within will not hinder His promise.

I agree that the Church seems to not punish severely enough, but whose job is it to punish…the Churches or our civil government.

This example is pale in comparison, but why do Baptist harp on the S. Baptist lady that got fired from a teaching position in Texas for going to the civil court and suing? Many say it’s a Church matter…

But anyway, as the Christian Science Monitor poll I posted earlier…Celibacy is not the issue, hence the 3,000 plus allegations of sexual-abuse within the Protestant ranks of married clergy in one year.

-

 

So before Christ ascended into heaven, He left a book to guide His Church? I didn't know that...

-

 

Civil government. According to Romans 13:1-5, Christians are to submit to it. The Vatican will not even cooperate with it -- the Vatican and its subsidiaries do all they can to hinder civil government in this task when priests commit sex crimes.

Please do not even bother to point to other church groups. When sexual abuse of children occurs in most churches, legal authorities are notified, as required by law.

The opposite response occurs in Catholic churches. Not only are the crimes rarely reported, but investigations are usually obstructed, and usually every effort is made to protect the guilty priest from legal accountability for his criminal activity.

While this is certainly unpleasant to point out, I believe that distinction needed to be pointed out.

 

Eliyahu: Please, enough of the posting of this nonsense. Do yourself a favor and get educated.

Yes, Peter was married…Yes, there are and still today married priests…yes, the Latin Rite requires its new priests to be celibate…yes, there’s no hint of celibacy being mandatory in the NT, but there’s ample warrant in the words of Christ and the writings of Paul that celibacy is a higher calling than that of marriage.

Celibacy is a practice, not a doctrine of the Church. There are married priest today in the Latin Rite, many are Lutherans or Episcopalians, but generally their not given parish assignments, they teach in seminaries or work in the chancery.

There are many reasons, both practical and theological, why the Church insists on clerical celibacy. The practice gradually codified in light of centuries of accumulated knowledge and experience. Early on it became obvious to bishops that a married priesthood doesn’t work and that the Church needs men who are willing to embrace a higher spiritual state.

Starting with the Spanish Council of Elvira in 305, regional Churches began to ask of the clergy what many priest already spontaneously chosen. The Early Church Fathers wrote in favor of clerical celibacy and at the end of the Dark Ages, great reforming Popes as, Leo IX and Gregory VII insisted henceforth the priesthood would be celibate. This decision greatly strengthened the Church and still does today, in my opinion.

Look at the OT, married priest had to observe continence while he served in the temple. Moses asked that the Jews abstained from conjugal sex while he ascended Mount Sinai. Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order that he might fulfill his ministry…

Please learn history, a Baptist preacher should stick to preaching and leave history to those that know history…

-

 

And I agree; the reason I brought it up is that a lady professor from a Southern Baptist Seminary in Texas got fired for being a woman and she’s suing and many Baptist are saying that this is a Church matter.

I agree, the Church should do more in convicting and letting the authorities do their job.

But this isn’t the issue with celibacy; the issue is lack of celibacy.

-