Confession - A Roman Catholic thread

[bbbbbbb]

I am not trying to trick you with a question and I do not have an agenda. I do agree with what you just posted, but IMO there is a reason for what you just described.

IMO, the Catholic tradition/doctrine of not allowing the clergy to marry is at the root of this phenomenon.

The Bible the qualifications of the clergy in 1 Timothy 3:1-2............
"The saying is trustworthy: If a man aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".

A Pastor/Bishop/Priest MUST BE a MARRIED MAN according to the Word of God.

Do you have an opinion on that?

Interesting. I see that you do not include elders as having those qualifications. As you know, I am sure, the Greek word for pastor (πάστορας) is not used in either passage in I Timothy or Titus 1, nor is priest (παπάς). Episkopos, which is typically transliterated as bishop is used interchangeably with presbyteros (elder). Paul describes the qualifications of elders/bishops, but not pastors or priests in these two passages. In actual fact, there are no qualifications for pastors given in the New Testament, other than that of the Great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ. As for priests, Peters informs us that you (all believers) are a royal priesthood and a chosen priesthood.

Concerning confession, the New Testament does not instruct anyone to confess their sins to a pastor or a priest, but to one another, especially if you have sinned against another person you are to go to him.

 

[Major1]

In the half dozen normal parishes I receive the sacrament, the lines were rather short before the abuse crisis and they remain rather short after the crisis. At a National Shrine to Our Lady where the traditional mass is said everyday at noon, the lines were super long prior to the scandal and are still super long. It seems lukewarm Catholics and Protestants like to arbitrarily use the abuse crisis to constantly pound on His Church. The abuse crisis has not pushed away the faithful laity.

The teachings in Humanae Vitae are no different than that of the Church of our Grandparents and way before. In fact, all of the predictions Paul VI made about marraige and the way society will treat women have come true.

Funny, the anglicans were the first main line denomination to allow contraception, the worst evil the family has ever seen. Now it is used as a reason lukewarm Catholics don't go to confession. Haha, the anglican church opened the door and let satan in and now it is His Church's fault for resisting satan. What a diabolical twist on things.

Luke warm Catholics?????

Pew survey: Pew survey: Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination

Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination.

And your answer is that there are "Luke warm Catholics".

Every Christian denominations has people who are luke warm, but the RCC is losing more than anyone else it seems.

Maybe these people are actually being "born again" and that is the reason they are moving to other denominations.

 

[Paidiske]

It seems to me that not allowing clergy to marry opens the door to all kinds of sexual problems with the list of those in the RCC being more than can be counted.

For that to be the case, we would need to see a higher proportion of celibate Catholic clergy as abusers than in the general population, but that is not the case. Most people who commit sexual abuse of children are, in fact, married.

Interesting. I see that you do not include elders as having those qualifications. As you know, I am sure, the Greek word for pastor (πάστορας) is not used in either passage in I Timothy or Titus 1, nor is priest (παπάς). Episkopos, which is typically transliterated as bishop is used interchangeably with presbyteros (elder). Paul describes the qualifications of elders/bishops, but not pastors or priests in these two passages. In actual fact, there are no qualifications for pastors given in the New Testament, other than that of the Great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ. As for priests, Peters informs us that you (all believers) are a royal priesthood and a chosen priesthood.

"Priest" as we use it in the Church to describe clergy is what in the NT Greek is presbyteros, elder. It went through a series of linguistic contractions: presbyteros -> presbyter -> prester -> priest. As a priest in the Church of God (which I am and function as, no matter what our interlocuter upthread says), I am functioning in the NT office of elder.

There's no cause for smugness about people moving their membership; there are people leaving each of our denominations for the others. It's not about one of us proving ourselves to be better than the others, but the value of realising why people move (like exit interviews, if you like), as it can give us insight into our particular weaknesses.

 

[Major1]

Interesting. I see that you do not include elders as having those qualifications. As you know, I am sure, the Greek word for pastor (πάστορας) is not used in either passage in I Timothy or Titus 1, nor is priest (παπάς). Episkopos, which is typically transliterated as bishop is used interchangeably with presbyteros (elder). Paul describes the qualifications of elders/bishops, but not pastors or priests in these two passages. In actual fact, there are no qualifications for pastors given in the New Testament, other than that of the Great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ. As for priests, Peters informs us that you (all believers) are a royal priesthood and a chosen priesthood.

Concerning confession, the New Testament does not instruct anyone to confess their sins to a pastor or a priest, but to one another, especially if you have sinned against another person you are to go to him.

For sure, this can be a trying question. I have no desire to make this an argument in any way. That was not my reason for asking at all.

However, I think that if we read the Scriptures we can move to the verse in 1 Tim. 3: we see Pauls saying...If A MAN desires the office of Bishop. "Bishop" is translated as "Overseer" I believe.

In the early church the pastor was called by several different titles.........
Pastor,
Elder,
Shepherd,
Presbyter,
Bishop,
Overseerer,
Minister...............But never "Reverend". Reverend means......"Terrible/that which incites terror".
That is a name which can only be applied to God.

I believe that Bishop and Elder are the same thing.

Elder in Greek is PRESBUTEROS and refers to a person who holds an office.

Bishop in Greek is EPISKOPOS and refers to the "office" that is held. So that is why I say they are the same thing.

Verses 2 then says "A Bishop/Pastor/Elder/Priest/(Deacon verses 8-13) or what ever we want to call it, should be the HUSBAND of One WIFE".

That can mean he can only have one wife.
It can also mean that he MUST be a married MAN.
In Paul's day Polygamy was common so then there is also that meaning.

But in all of those it is clear that MAN means MAN/MALE.

Now I did not say that. Paul did not call me and ask me my opinion but clearly Paul had a reason and
the indication there is that who ever is the person in charge, He must be a HUSBAND and if that is the case it rules out women.

Why did God have Paul say it that way? I do not know!

It may have been that women in Paul's day were not educated and not well thought of.
It may have been that God knew there would be tremendous persecutions of leaders and He knew that women would not be able to stand against that persecution.

Bottom line.......I do not know.

 

[Major1]

For that to be the case, we would need to see a higher proportion of celibate Catholic clergy as abusers than in the general population, but that is not the case. Most people who commit sexual abuse of children are, in fact, married.



"Priest" as we use it in the Church to describe clergy is what in the NT Greek is presbyteros, elder. It went through a series of linguistic contractions: presbyteros -> presbyter -> prester -> priest. As a priest in the Church of God (which I am and function as, no matter what our interlocuter upthread says), I am functioning in the NT office of elder.

There's no cause for smugness about people moving their membership; there are people leaving each of our denominations for the others. It's not about one of us proving ourselves to be better than the others, but the value of realising why people move (like exit interviews, if you like), as it can give us insight into our particular weaknesses.

Wouldn't the higher numbers you suggest need to be in percentages and not actual numbers.

There are probably no actuate figures that the RCC would give in settelments outside of court cases.

I am not sure what you mean by "smugness" of people moving memberships.

If you were referring to me, the comment I posted and the link included was an actual survey done by PEW Associciates and was not my opinion but a statement of there findings as factual.

 

[Paidiske]

However, I think that if we read the Scriptures we can move to the verse in 1 Tim. 3: we see Pauls saying...If A MAN desires the office of Bishop.

Except that's not what Paul said. Many English translations put it that way, but the way Paul put it was ei tis; "if anyone."

 

[Paidiske]

Wouldn't the higher numbers you suggest need to be in percentages and not actual numbers.

I was speaking of percentages. There is not a higher percentage of Catholic clergy who abuse children, than men in the general population.

I am not sure what you mean by "smugness" of people moving memberships.

There seemed to be a bit of back-and-forth developing in the thread where people felt the need to denigrate other churches. I'm suggesting that's beside the point. All of us should ask ourselves why when people leave our churches.

 

[Major1]

Except that's not what Paul said. Many English translations put it that way, but the way Paul put it was ei tis; "if anyone."

As I said, I did not say that to start anything as it is not in line with this thread.

This subject always ends in an argument and I do not want to be doing that.

However, you are correct in the word ANYONE. The Bible translations are split about 50-50 on verse #1 being "Anyone" compared to "A MAN".

But they are ALL in unison on the phrase of ....."HE must be the HUSBAND of one WIFE" and also,
"HE desireth a good work as well as "HE must rule HIS household well".

 

[Major1]

I was speaking of percentages. There is not a higher percentage of Catholic clergy who abuse children, than men in the general population.



There seemed to be a bit of back-and-forth developing in the thread where people felt the need to denigrate other churches. I'm suggesting that's beside the point. All of us should ask ourselves why when people leave our churches.

Agreed.

 

[All4Christ]

With out any disrespect to you, maybe you should attend some other churches and you just might see that they do more than you ever thought my friend.

I have been around Protestant church's for 50 years and what Dale described is the normal not the exception.

Many non-denominational churches don't have weekly communion. The Brethren In Christ, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, and some charismatic non-denominational churches that I attended / visited did not have weekly communion. About 2/3 of my life was in similar churches to the ones I mentioned (though I am not yet 50, so I can't claim that ). I suggest that the norm is different depending on the type of church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Many non-denominational churches don't have weekly communion. The Brethren In Christ, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, and some charismatic non-denominational churches that I attended / visited did not have weekly communion. About 2/3 of my life was in similar churches to the ones I mentioned (though I am not yet 50, so I can't claim that ). I suggest that the norm is different depending on the type of church.

There is a wide range of frequency among various Protestant church in regard to communion. It took me a while before I found a church which does it weekly.

Likewise, there is even a wider range of practice regarding confession of sin within the broader Christian community, as evidenced by the topic of this thread.

 

[All4Christ]

There is a wide range of frequency among various Protestant church in regard to communion. It took me a while before I found a church which does it weekly.

Likewise, there is even a wider range of practice regarding confession of sin within the broader Christian community, as evidenced by the topic of this thread.

Agreed on both counts.

 

[Dale]

Many non-denominational churches don't have weekly communion. The Brethren In Christ, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, and some charismatic non-denominational churches that I attended / visited did not have weekly communion. About 2/3 of my life was in similar churches to the ones I mentioned (though I am not yet 50, so I can't claim that ). I suggest that the norm is different depending on the type of church.

I wouldn't have thought that the churches you mentioned were non-denominational. The churches I am referring to are those descended from the movement associated with Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone in 19th century America. It was known as the Restoration movement. The modern Disciples of Christ trace their origin to this movement, although they have become a denomination since then.

 

[All4Christ]

I wouldn't have thought that the churches you mentioned were non-denominational. The churches I am referring to are those descended from the movement associated with Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone in 19th century America. It was known as the Restoration movement. The modern Disciples of Christ trace their origin to this movement, although they have become a denomination since then.

I agree that many of those were not non-denominational, though the Charismatic churches called themselves non-denominational. Major spoke about Protestants in general, so I broadened the scope of my response. Apologies for any ambiguity.

That said, I do know of many that call themselves non-denominational that do not have weekly communion. I am not aware of those ones being specifically related to any movement though. They were just groups of Christians that decided to form a church without an associated denomination...hence they called themselves non-denominational. (Perhaps they are an indirect result of that general trend promoted by the restoration movement - but it was not intentional)

That said - thanks for the info!

 

[Major1]

Except that's not what Paul said. Many English translations put it that way, but the way Paul put it was ei tis; "if anyone."

Please remember that I said in the very beginning of your comment of this that I did not want to debate this!!!! It always leads to arguments and I do not want to argue. But you have continued to debate so......

But isn't it true that all translations say.............."He must be the HUSBAND of one WIFE"?

1 Corth. 14:34-37 says...........
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord".

PICK ONE!
Timothy 3:2 says.............
King James Version
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach'.

Darby Bible Translation
The overseer then must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, decorous, hospitable, apt to teach;

World English Bible
The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

Young's Literal Translation
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,

Geneva Study Bible
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

New Living Translation
So an elder must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach.

English Standard Version
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Berean Study Bible
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Berean Literal Bible
Therefore it behooves the overseer to be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

New American Standard Bible
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

 

[Fidelibus]

IMO, the Catholic tradition/doctrine of not allowing the clergy to marry is at the root of this phenomenon.

My apologies to the OP for going off topic, but I must not let this mis-guided statement from Maj1 to go unchallenged.

Your opinions on both counts are incorrect Maj. First off, as a person that prides himself being knowledgable in the Catholic faith should know that in the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, you should know that there are married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood.


You should also know the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

Now for your statement that unmarried clergy being "the root of this phenomenon" is also incorrect.Statistics clearly show that the problem of sexual abuse is a societal-wide one, with occurrences far more prevalent in other circles. Yet. because of your obvious anti-Catholic agenda, you focus only on the Catholic Church. It's classic selective, cynical, agenda-driven with the result being false and distorted, and stastistics prove it.

An independent study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the USCCB, from May 2011, found that sexual abuse from priests occurs at a much lower rate than in the rest of society, and that most abuse takes place in families. The rate among priests was determined to be five per every 100,000 young people, whereas the larger societal rate was 134, or almost a 27 times greater likelihood.

Even if we examine fellow Christians (non-Catholics), the known statistics are very sobering and revealing. For example, the “flagship” evangelical Protestant magazine Christianity Today noted that there were “70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years,” a quarter of which were against pastors, mainly 'married' pastors. If we do the math, that adds up to 36,400 cases in ten years. Why don't you ever talk about that?

The Bible the qualifications of the clergy in 1 Timothy 3:1-2............
"The saying is trustworthy: If a man aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".

A Pastor/Bishop/Priest MUST BE a MARRIED MAN according to the Word of God.

But as you yourself even admit, your opinions reguarding scripture may be in error, correct?

With that in mind....let's remember, St. Paul was a Bishop, and so was Timothy, but as far as I know, neither of them were ever married. So, if St. Paul was requiring St. Timothy only to ordain married men, then what happens to Timothy himself, for not being married - or to St. Paul? Remember what St.Paul say's in 1 Cor.7-8...... "But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I."


St.Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . 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" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

 

[concretecamper]

Priests not being able to marry is a discipline in the Church, it is not a doctrine. To say otherwise shows ignoramce.

 

[concretecamper]

IMO, saying that having celibate priests is at the root of the sexual abuse crisis is stupid.

What normal man goes looking for little boys as a result of being celibate. Now if they where all having affairs with women, then you would have an argument.

 

[Major1]

My apologies to the OP for going off topic, but I must not let this mis-guided statement from Maj1 to go unchallenged.

Your opinions on both counts are incorrect Maj. First off, as a person that prides himself being knowledgable in the Catholic faith should know that in the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, you should know that there are married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood.


You should also know the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

Now for your statement that unmarried clergy being "the root of this phenomenon" is also incorrect.Statistics clearly show that the problem of sexual abuse is a societal-wide one, with occurrences far more prevalent in other circles. Yet. because of your obvious anti-Catholic agenda, you focus only on the Catholic Church. It's classic selective, cynical, agenda-driven with the result being false and distorted, and stastistics prove it.

An independent study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the USCCB, from May 2011, found that sexual abuse from priests occurs at a much lower rate than in the rest of society, and that most abuse takes place in families. The rate among priests was determined to be five per every 100,000 young people, whereas the larger societal rate was 134, or almost a 27 times greater likelihood.

Even if we examine fellow Christians (non-Catholics), the known statistics are very sobering and revealing. For example, the “flagship” evangelical Protestant magazine Christianity Today noted that there were “70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years,” a quarter of which were against pastors, mainly 'married' pastors. If we do the math, that adds up to 36,400 cases in ten years. Why don't you ever talk about that?




But as you yourself even admit, your opinions reguarding scripture may be in error, correct?

With that in mind....let's remember, St. Paul was a Bishop, and so was Timothy, but as far as I know, neither of them were ever married. So, if St. Paul was requiring St. Timothy only to ordain married men, then what happens to Timothy himself, for not being married - or to St. Paul? Remember what St.Paul say's in 1 Cor.7-8...... "But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I."


St.Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . 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" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Throughout the Catholic Church, East as well as West, a priest may not marry. To become a married priest, one must therefore marry before being ordained.

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, without exception, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate, and marriage after priestly ordination.

IT is true that The Church considers the law of clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. Exceptions are sometimes made, especially in the case of married Protestant clergymen who convert to the Catholic Church, but that is a very minuscule number.

 

[Major1]

IMO, saying that having celibate priests is at the root of the sexual abuse crisis is stupid.

What normal man goes looking for little boys as a result of being celibate. Now if they where all having affairs with women, then you would have an argument.

Funny you would say that. It us not known the thousands of children born unto RCC Priests.

The full Boston Globe report is here: Children of Catholic priests live with secrets and sorrow.