Peter Was Married

[PaladinValer]

Sorry to advocate not to marry in order to become and elder or Pastor cannot be be supported with Scripture.

Someone quoted it earlier, so whether or not you agree with the interpretation doesn't mean it has not Scriptural support.

Now scripture can be taken and twisted to support this man made rule.

Most rules about clergy in practically every single religion and sect therein on Earth are not found in that religion's Holy Writ.

That includes most Evangelical Protestant denominations.

Pot Kettle Black.

Sacrament of Holy Orders?

Ordination to the major, or sacerdotal orders is a sacrament (or mystery), ordained by God in Scripture and Tradition.

You know, not to go off on a tangent, but if you don't even know what a sacrament is and yet you want to accuse the Vatican Catholics of something that you know truly nothing about...its simply baffling. You've got no rank or experience to even have any credence.

Where is it stated that no being able to marry if one desires to become a local shepherd is a discipline? And where does it say that this discipline is Godly?

See my above.

This proves my point. You've got no clue what you are even arguing about. If you have such a shallow understanding of the Vatican Catholic Church as you've shown yourself to have, I suggest not critiquing it until you actually learn the facts.

Even Protestants are calling you on that.

I base my opinions on the teaching of scripture. You base yours on what?

No, you base your opinions on your particular reading of Scripture, which I daresay is probably the opinion of your pastor.

My opinions are based upon the Scripture as interpreted by the Church guided by the Holy Spirit which have not altered.

And this is confusing to you how?

Here's some honest advice: Learn what they believe before going around knocking off Straw Men.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Then he shouldn't be expected to submit to celebacy in the first place.

True. But one can always reverse that decision later I would think. Has been done before correct?

 

[boswd]

True. But one can always reverse that decision later I would think. Has been done before correct?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was changed within the next decade or two.

But as the others have said, if you don't want to remain celebant but serve your church become a deacon, No one is forcing you to be a priest. the rules are there and aren't thrown upon you as a surprise.

Just as alot of Church's have a no drinking alcohol policy to be a member. If you want to still be able to have a drink then don't join that Church, but you want to be a member then they have rules.
So the how does the argument of "Man's made rules shouldn't be forced upon you" fall with all these Protestant Church's?

 

[MamaZ]

Someone quoted it earlier, so whether or not you agree with the interpretation doesn't mean it has not Scriptural support.

Scripture does not say one needs to submit to celebacy in order to be an elder.. It is not seen anywhere.

Most rules about clergy in practically every single religion and sect therein on Earth are not found in that religion's Holy Writ.

Explanation about this please.

That includes most Evangelical Protestant denominations.

Pot Kettle Black.

What are the rules for becoming and elder?

Ordination to the major, or sacerdotal orders is a sacrament (or mystery), ordained by God in Scripture and Tradition.

Awe it is the tradition part I guess.

You know, not to go off on a tangent, but if you don't even know what a sacrament is and yet you want to accuse the Vatican Catholics of something that you know truly nothing about...its simply baffling. You've got no rank or experience to even have any credence.

Actually I don't see the sacraments in the scriptures. So this is why I asked about the sacrament part. Must be another tradition thing..

See my above.

This proves my point. You've got no clue what you are even arguing about. If you have such a shallow understanding of the Vatican Catholic Church as you've shown yourself to have, I suggest not critiquing it until you actually learn the facts.

Well actually having a man submit to a discipline that is not even in scripture is quite baffling to me..

Even Protestants are calling you on that.

Well many a Prostestant out there that don't adhere to scripture as I do. So maybe this is where the difference lays. I am a reformed protestant. LOL..

No, you base your opinions on your particular reading of Scripture, which I daresay is probably the opinion of your pastor.

Actually no it is not an opinion of a Pastor. I find no reading of scripture that tells one has to be celebate in order to be an elder.

My opinions are based upon the Scripture as interpreted by the Church guided by the Holy Spirit which have not altered.

[/color]

There we Go.. You allow someone else interpret the scripture. So you choose to adhere to what someone else believes the scripture to say by their interpretation istead of just allow scripture to hold the truth as it is plainly read..


Here's some honest advice: Learn what they believe before going around knocking off Straw Men.

Show me how it is straw men when forebidding to marry is being a rule..

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I do not think any of the Orthodox Churches allow priests to get married, only married men to become priests, please correct me if this is not the case

Define 'orthodox' for me first.

I'm pretty certain you're right, that a priest cannot marry, but a married man can become a priest.

Rather a double standard, isn't it?

That's why I don't think there should be anything wrong with a priest who falls in love and decides to get married. He should still be able to be a priest.

Then he shouldn't be expected to submit to celebacy in the first place.

If a man is willing to, he should be able to. It shouldn't be a requirement in my opinion. I'm just saying I don't have a problem with the requirement because most guys know what they're getting into when they enter into the priesthood. Probably most of them have no problems with their vow of celibacy. We only get to hear about those that can't handle it.

 

[MamaZ]

And because of this we have seen much of the outcome. For unless one can control their passions one should not stay unmarried.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

I've always thought that if priests where married and had children, the children (more than likely becoming Christians or at least being moral) then could set a good example to other young people that they mix with and even lead people to Christ.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And because of this we have seen much of the outcome. For unless one can control their passions one should not stay unmarried.

But the opposite side of that argument is that those who cannot control their passions and need to be married shouldn't be priests in the Catholic Church.

While I do not believe that scripture dictates or demands celibacy from men of God, the Catholic Church has decided to require it.

 

[Standing Up]

I've always thought that if priests where married and had children, the children (more than likely becoming Christians or at least being moral) then could set a good example to other young people that they mix with and even lead people to Christ.

Good point.

As well, your family seems to be a "training ground" per Scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

RCC requires priests to be single.

Is that some sort of infallible Papal decision?

 

[Uphill Battle]

And because of this we have seen much of the outcome. For unless one can control their passions one should not stay unmarried.

that's rather obtuse.

It's clear that married clergy in other denominatins have commited the same sins.

the "outcome" is no different, you're just poking at the one you disagree with.

 

[PaladinValer]

At this point, she refuses to get what is, perhaps, the most crucial part:

Deacons are truly ordained ministers. They are not required to be celibate, yet they have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Therefore, it is logical to say that one needn't be celibate to receive that sacrament to be ordained.

And since it is the same sacrament bestowed again to ordain the next order, it is clear that there is no doctrinal (and thusly no dogmatic) prohibition on the part of that noble institution.

Therefore, there is absolutely no doctrinal position on celibacy on the part of the Vatican Catholic Church, period. Anyone who says otherwise is being nothing more than disrespectful to that church and to God Himself, the Author of Truth.

MamaZ, the above is fact. You can disagree with the practice, but any sort of implication that the Vatican Catholics are in doctrinal conflict with Scripture (or Tradition or Reason) is fundamentally false.

Vatican Catholics have told you that.
Other Apostolic Christians have told you that.
Protestants, even fellow Evangelical Protestants have told you that.

Such a diverse group agreeing that you are incorrect is rather telling.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Just out of curiosity, and because I've never seen the term bandied about before, is Vatican Catholic the new way to say Roman Catholic?

 

[PaladinValer]

Just out of curiosity, and because I've never seen the term bandied about before, is Vatican Catholic the new way to say Roman Catholic?

I believe I was the originator of that term long before my 1.2 year gap in participation here on CF.

I use that term for the following reasons:

1. That particular church is not the only one that claims to be Catholic.
2. It is fairer to the Eastern Catholics since, while they are fellow members with them in the same church, they are not Roman Catholics.
3. I think we've all, particularly members of that church, had it with many Chiliasts' bogus accusations of it being the You-Know-What of Rome in their eschatological view of the Book of Revelation. In reality, their church isn't based in Rome proper but in Vatican.

I believe it to be a fair medium between their use of simply "Catholic" and our own (as I recall Lutherans claim their church to be Catholic too): it is accurate in their location, its encompassing of all its Rites, and also I pointed out, it is proof against certain eschatological views.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I believe I was the originator of that term long before my 1.2 year gap in participation here on CF.

I use that term for the following reasons:

1. That particular church is not the only one that claims to be Catholic.
2. It is fairer to the Eastern Catholics since, while they are fellow members with them in the same church, they are not Roman Catholics.
3. I think we've all, particularly members of that church, had it with many Chiliasts' bogus accusations of it being the You-Know-What of Rome in their eschatological view of the Book of Revelation. In reality, their church isn't based in Rome proper but in Vatican.

I believe it to be a fair medium between their use of simply "Catholic" and our own (as I recall Lutherans claim their church to be Catholic too): it is accurate in their location, its encompassing of all its Rites, and also I pointed out, it is proof against certain eschatological views.

yyyyeah...... but R.C. is easier to use than V.C.

you say V.C..... you might be talking about these guys.

just kidding.

 

[PaladinValer]

yyyyeah...... but R.C. is easier to use than V.C.

Not sure I follow. V is closer to C than R is on the keyboard.

 

[Uphill Battle]

just might have some vietnam vets in here thinking you mean Vietcong, not Vatican Catholic.

just a joke. One that didn't get off the ground, it would seem!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

slight, but very profound correction:

Many Lutherans consider themselves to be catholic Christians. Lower-case C (as in universal). Big distinction.

I believe I was the originator of that term long before my 1.2 year gap in participation here on CF.

I use that term for the following reasons:

1. That particular church is not the only one that claims to be Catholic.
2. It is fairer to the Eastern Catholics since, while they are fellow members with them in the same church, they are not Roman Catholics.
3. I think we've all, particularly members of that church, had it with many Chiliasts' bogus accusations of it being the You-Know-What of Rome in their eschatological view of the Book of Revelation. In reality, their church isn't based in Rome proper but in Vatican.

I believe it to be a fair medium between their use of simply "Catholic" and our own (as I recall Lutherans claim their church to be Catholic too): it is accurate in their location, its encompassing of all its Rites, and also I pointed out, it is proof against certain eschatological views.