RCC Priest says Jesus may have been married

I heard on TV the pope was considering allowing priests to marry. So, this is to politically set the scene for the big change, no doubt, even though it is false. Jesus was never married.

 

You are speaking of McBrien I believe, now and then he gets a mike (t.v.) and spouts his heretical ideas. I do not know why his bishop doesn't yank him up by his collar.

It is absolutely contrary to Church teaching, what he says.

Actually some priests do marry in the Catholic Church. Mainly in the eastern rite but also some Roman rite Catholics are married, having been married prior to their conversion and already clergy.


LaRae

 

Actually the pope is not considering it. The TV isn't always right about what the Catholic Church is doing....we see that time and time again.

So your theory about this being to politically set the scene is a bit presumptuous.


LaRae

 

Brian,

Haven't we been through this before and still you hold to your misconceptions placed in your mind by anti-catholics. THERE ARE MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY. IT IS NOT DOGMA IT IS DISCIPLINE OR PRACTICE under the binding authority of the POPE. "WHATEVER you bind on earth" (not just faith and morals). If you use it as an arguement against Catholicism today I shall have to take out my anti-catholic stick and use it on YOU.

McBrien has long been know as a liberal theologian. He should be defrocked. And you and I know that Jesus was not re-married so how does a crackpot priest's words influence any of that. Jesus said there would be "wolves among" us so let's just leave it at that and not try to make it some issue that weakens the weak sheep's faith. Have any of us ever said that every Catholic submits to the Church? Those who do are not in unity with it. So what.

I go on the Artificial Birth Control thread and I see a half dozen Catholics who are submissive to the Church being very unified. While the 8-10 Prots who have posted on that thread who all claim to have JC as their PLS and go by the Bible Alone supposedly, are all over the map. We have two Baptist pastors, both who by Protestant standards claim the Bible as their guide and therefore are Orthodox, neither of whom any Protestant has raised a voice against, disagreeing with eachother (of course each one has to make some sort of disparaging remarks against the Catholics,(except of course for the one pastor taht agrees with them on the issue).

Blessings

PS. Do you really think that God wants you to post lame arguements that are based on false conceptions of Catholicism (even if we were wrong which were not).

[ November 05, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Hi Brian,

I saw the same show you're talking about. (Pretty stupid, wasn't it? What some people won't do to sell a book -- or get a rating point).

While I agree with LaRae that Rev. McBrien is sort of a goofball (especially when a TV camera is around), I think (by my recollection of his statements) that you're misconstruing him a bit.

First, while he conceded that it's not totally impossible that Jesus was married (given that Scripture doesn't say specifically "Jesus was not married"), he considers it highly unlikely (citing one of Paul's letters). Basically, his comments and those of the other guy (from Dallas Theological Seminary, I believe) were pretty similar in that regard.

Second, he said that if Jesus had been married, it wouldn't make any difference with respect to Christ's divinity. (Again, as I recall, the DTS guy said pretty much the same). While I believe McBrien probably does favor permitting married men to become priests in the Western Church (as they have always been able to do in the Eastern Catholic Churches), his comments on the show were focused on the divinity question. (Unless he said something about priests and marriage when I went to the kitchen for seconds on the jambalaya -- if you're aware of a quote that I missed, let me know.)

Third, I would hope that all Christians "look to Jesus as [our] main example of how to live." Obviously, that doesn't mean all of us must copy each and every particular. [Or are you moving to the Holy Land soon to take up a life of itinerent preaching leading to crucifixion?]

Fourth, Mary's virginity is "very important to Catholics" because we believe it's true -- not to mention that it points to other truths about the uniqueness and holiness of Christ. But in general, I only end up talking about it when somebody else who doesn't believe it's true wants to bug me about it. Which means that for practical purposes, it's apparently an even more important issue to the other person -- or maybe it's just important to them to pick a fight, and the issue is incidental to that goal.

God bless,

Mark H.

 

Oh, I firmly believe Mary was a virgin PRIOR to the birth of Jesus Christ. HOWEVER, as a Christian, I also know that GOD used a godly human being and not a specially conceived creation to bear the incarnate Son of God. Mary and Joseph were fully married, in the Biblical sense and consumated their affection AFTER the birth of our precious Savior. I don't care what the pope thinks.

 

A_Christian,

I agree with you and think this scripture does too!

Diane Tavegia

 

Hi AC,

Your post exemplifies the dilemma I faced in my previous post. On the one hand, I didn't want to ignore Brian's mention of Mary in relation to the show's thesis. On the other hand, I guessed that anything I might say would risk sidetracking the thread.

My personal preference would be to keep this thread on the topic of the show, goofy as it was.

On a side topic -- does anybody know if "Margaret Starbird" is that woman's (original) real name? Or did she change her name to Starbird as some sort of rejection of patriarchial naming practices of our unjust sexist society, or something?

God bless,

Mark

 

We don't know that for a fact. We believe that he wasn't married, and it's more likely that he was single his entire life, but the Bile is deafeningly silent on the issue. The absence of any biblical references implies that he probably wasn't, but that it by no means emperical.

 

Now there's a great question. If he is teaching contrary to scripture, or tradition of the RCC, why is it allowed ? Doesn't it damage the overall unity ?

 

He couldn't have been married. The bible tells men to submit to their wive's needs. Jesus' bride is the church. That's who he submitted himself to.

 

Yes we do. The Bible says His Bride is the Church. Any other presumption makes Him out to be a polygamist.

 

Hi, She Eagle

 

Hi, Brian. Yes, this priest is on the fringe, so much so as to be close to being outside the fold.

He has received letters from the Ameican Bishops telling him that his doctrines are unsound and dangerous and to cool it.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Ron

 

Will he be "disbarred", so to speak ? Or will he be allowed to speak on...

Also, what is the church doing to warn others that his teachings contradict the teachings of the church ?

 

Don't know. It's not my decision to make.

No doubt there could be no satisfactory answer for you though.

If the Church does act, either by preventing him for teaching from his office as priest, or by excommunication, or whatever, you will go off on a rant about the Church persecuting him.

What would be a satisfactory answer in your eyes, Curtis?

 

An informative one.

 

As I said before, Curtis, it is not up to me to decide.

Not being able to foretell the future and having no part in the decision making process about how the Church will respond to this one particular person, what sort of "informed" answer are you expecting here?

As I previously asked, what answer would satisfy you?

First of all, I would hazard to say that the vast majority of Catholics are not even vaguely aware of this particular priest, let alone the things that he says.

Rather than issuing warnings about random unsound doctrine coming forth from random sources, the best solution is to continue as the Church has for the past 2,000 years, that is teach the truth. Then individuals can recognize the ocassional aberation when it shows up.