The law of some churchs verses the teaching of Paul

[Polycarp1]

So then if a man were a priest and then came to understand His need for a wife would he have to give up his clergy duties? I understand that this is the law for a church. But does this law line up with the Apostles teachings? Was Peter Married? Why would a law be imposed upon men to whom even the very Aposltes did not place upon others?

The technical term for what an (unmarried) Catholic priest wishing to marry does is laicization -- it means that he 'steps down' from his role as priest to become one of the laity. Catholic doctrine teaches that ordination causes an indelible mark on the soul -- "Thou art a priest forever" is the Scripture cited. He remains a priest but is inhibited from doing the things that only a priest may do except in time of emergency. It's not considered sinful in any way -- he remains a loyal Catholic in good standing, just one with a vocation to married life rather than one to the priesthood.

Catholic deacons, on the other hand, may be married. (IIRC, the same marriage-must-precede-ordination rule that the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics follow is applicable.) Deacons can do most of the normal ministry -- pastoral care, baptism, teaching, preaching, etc. -- but cannot celebrate Mass. (In the absence of a priest, they may distribute communion from the reserved sacrament.)

 

[MamaZ]

Wow.. This is so hard to swallow for me. For there is only one that is a Priest forever and that is Christ. So a deacon can do all things except attend Mass? I need some more explaining I guess with this part.

 

[ArcticFox]

As was said before, this is a regulation made by the RCC around the year AD1000. It is not 'imposed' on any Catholic. Paul was speaking of marriage in general and of the institution of marriage. The RCC certainly does not prohibit marriage.

Requiring any Christian in any office not to marry by decree of any other than that individual himself is in fact unbiblical.

But it does set a number of standards for men seeking ordination in the Latin rite--but not other RCC rites--in the church. If a man wants to adhere to them voluntarily, that's his choice. ALMOST EVERY OTHER DENOMINATION sets some, also, which are not Biblical requirements. Where, for instance, does the idea come from that a candidate for the ministry has to have graduated from a seminary?

It is still an improper restriction placed on clergy, and unbiblical. In fact, the Bible prohibits such a thing.

As for requiring graduation from a seminary, that is not a valid argument for two reasons. #1, just because someone else does something "wrong" as well, doesn't mean you can justify your own wrong actions. It's like saying that it's OK to murder if someone else murders, too.

#2 Requiring someone to have seminary education is an additional requirement, not a restriction of a Christian freedom (the freedom of marriage). Although similar, they vary greatly in nature.

I am not saying that we should support requiring seminary education, but that it's simply not a valid argument to justify prohibiting marriage for clergy.

The only 'church' that comes to mind immediately as having prohibited marriage would be the Shakers. So if you want to say that they are going against what Paul taught, I'd probably agree.

I would say any church that prohibits members from marrying is going against what Paul taught. Of course, refusing to marry someone in the church because of a current marriage relationship, or because of other extenuating circumstances are not in the discussion here, we are speaking of prohibiting marriage in and of itself, as an individual action separate from any wrong-doing in the person being prohibited.

 

[sunlover1]

Requiring any Christian in any office not to marry by decree of any other than that individual himself is in fact unbiblical.

It is still an improper restriction placed on clergy, and unbiblical. In fact, the Bible prohibits such a thing.

I'm a video editor . I use Final Cut Pro. See my latest videos here.

Wow!
That "Tips and Tricks, Buttons" video is 'faaaaaaannnnnccccyyy'

This is so COOL. I love listening to you teach, you have a very
calming and gentle way, plus you repeat yourself in recapping.
(repitition is the mother of learning.

I've watched 3 so far...
My downstairs pc puked last week, and when I went down there to
start it in safe mode (WindowsXPpro) it just kept cycling through some
numbers in a dos screen and, oh my. I'm thinking it might be the hard
drive crashed. The mother board should be updated anyhow and the
processor is slow and should be replaced... old graphics card etc.
ANYhow, I was thinking that since I would like to learn how to make
iphone apps maybe I should consider a mac.
Havent used a mac since taking a short programming class ... many
years ago.
My one concern is that my fav programs wont work on a mac.
...

 

[Rebekah30]

Wow.. This is so hard to swallow for me. For there is only one that is a Priest forever and that is Christ. So a deacon can do all things except attend Mass? I need some more explaining I guess with this part.

Christ is our only high Priest.
An ordained catholic priest is considered a priest forever, even if he not allowed to perform his duties or he choses to leave.
A deacon can attend mass ,but can not perform it.

You don't really need some more explaining since it is not important

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ooops....may be off topic.....post deletedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZCoIege8oM

 

[Rebekah30]

Ahhhh Kewlies!! Perhaps you can tell me whether this U tube video on this thread was staged or not

http://www.christianforums.com/t7346106/
Just a Fun question Purse and Airbag

YouTube - Funniest Thing Ever - Hilarious

 

[Albion]

Requiring any Christian in any office not to marry by decree of any other than that individual himself is in fact unbiblical.

And you see that I disagree with that, although I do consider it a bad policy decision to require priests to be unmarried and to take vows to that end.

It is still an improper restriction placed on clergy, and unbiblical. In fact, the Bible prohibits such a thing.

No it doesn't. In fact, Paul speaks of the unmarried life as preferable--if you can do it.

As for requiring graduation from a seminary, that is not a valid argument for two reasons. #1, just because someone else does something "wrong" as well, doesn't mean you can justify your own wrong actions. It's like saying that it's OK to murder if someone else murders, too.

I merely noted that the churches to which people belong who call the requirements of the RCC an unfair thing to put upon candidates for the priesthood DO ALSO THEMSELVES impost similar and UNBIBLICAL requirements of their own. They never mention that fact, however.

I would say any church that prohibits members from marrying is going against what Paul taught.

Except that Paul taught that it's wrong to prohibit marriage, not to select clergy only from the ranks of the unmarried and those who intend to remain unmarried, or to require a vow of celibacy from only a few particular people..

Exactly, and that's why Paul's words do not apply to the issue of clerical celibacy.

MamaZ: So a deacon can do all things except attend Mass? I need some more explaining I guess with this part.

That's been mentioned twice now, but what Polycarp noted was that Deacons may not 'celebrate" Mass/Lord's Supper. It's not the case that they are not permitted to "attend" Mass! That would be weird, if true, no?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's been mentioned twice now, but what Polycarp noted was that Deacons may not 'celebrate" Mass/Lord's Supper.

It's not the case that they are not permitted to "attend" Mass! That would be weird, if true, no?

Yes, I suppose it would

http://www.christianforums.com/t7321680/
Reasons why the eucharist is not a metaphor

 

[Polycarp1]

Since I (and Albion) knew a bit about Catholicism, we've volunteered information here in the absence of knowledgeable Catholics speaking. I personally don't feel that clerical celibacy is a good idea except for very unusual circumstances (missionaries to places where raising a family might be difficult, men working inner-city slum missions, etc.). But knowing what Catholicism thinks, we've tried to explain that. (The priest in charge of our parish and her husband have a very happy marriage and joint ministry together.)

MamaZ, I'm sorry about terminology -- "celebrate" is the term for "preside as minister at" for the Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper. Catholic doctrine says that it takes a priest to "celebrate" the Mass, but that they can have a communion service with a Deacon presiding by using bread and wine consecrated by a priest and reserved for the occasion.

 

[sunlover1]

And you see that I disagree with that, although I do consider it a bad policy decision to require priests to be unmarried and to take vows to that end.

We've all seen how that's worked out.

No it doesn't. In fact, Paul speaks of the unmarried life as preferable--if you can do it.

Evidently most of the Apostles couldnt.
I know that I couldnt, heck, woman was made for man.

I merely noted that the churches to which people belong who call the requirements of the RCC an unfair thing to put upon candidates for the priesthood DO ALSO THEMSELVES impost similar and UNBIBLICAL requirements of their own. They never mention that fact, however.

Actually we did have a thread about that around here.
This thread was for exploring the celibacy debate.

Since I (and Albion) knew a bit about Catholicism, we've volunteered information here in the absence of knowledgeable Catholics speaking. I personally don't feel that clerical celibacy is a good idea except for very unusual circumstances (missionaries to places where raising a family might be difficult, men working inner-city slum missions, etc.).

And even that probably by choice rather than requirement.
My daughter's husband works full time one job at the hospital
as an MRI tech, one job part time as a traveling MRI tech, plus
is in school part time finishing up masters of divinity.
They're very happily married. She lives next door to me, and
that may help some but where did we get the idea a husband
and wife need to be together 24/7 anyhow.
I think she's onto something actually

 

[ArcticFox]

Wow!
That "Tips and Tricks, Buttons" video is 'faaaaaaannnnnccccyyy'

This is so COOL. I love listening to you teach, you have a very
calming and gentle way, plus you repeat yourself in recapping.
(repitition is the mother of learning.

I've watched 3 so far...
My downstairs pc puked last week, and when I went down there to
start it in safe mode (WindowsXPpro) it just kept cycling through some
numbers in a dos screen and, oh my. I'm thinking it might be the hard
drive crashed. The mother board should be updated anyhow and the
processor is slow and should be replaced... old graphics card etc.
ANYhow, I was thinking that since I would like to learn how to make
iphone apps maybe I should consider a mac.
Havent used a mac since taking a short programming class ... many
years ago.
My one concern is that my fav programs wont work on a mac.
...

Thank you, though it's a bit OT, you should check to see if there are Mac versions of your programs available. Many popular open source programs have Mac versions, such as Firefox, and many closed-source programs do too (Skype).

You can also look into VMWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop, both of which allow you to smoothly run Windows programs inside Mac OS X. After a short while of switching, I just never run any Windows programs anymore, I just don't have a need for them... I've found the same or better Mac equivalents.

 

[boswd]

Requiring any Christian in any office not to marry by decree of any other than that individual himself is in fact unbiblical.



It is still an improper restriction placed on clergy, and unbiblical. In fact, the Bible prohibits such a thing.

As for requiring graduation from a seminary, that is not a valid argument for two reasons. #1, just because someone else does something "wrong" as well, doesn't mean you can justify your own wrong actions. It's like saying that it's OK to murder if someone else murders, too.

#2 Requiring someone to have seminary education is an additional requirement, not a restriction of a Christian freedom (the freedom of marriage). Although similar, they vary greatly in nature.

I am not saying that we should support requiring seminary education, but that it's simply not a valid argument to justify prohibiting marriage for clergy.



I would say any church that prohibits members from marrying is going against what Paul taught. Of course, refusing to marry someone in the church because of a current marriage relationship, or because of other extenuating circumstances are not in the discussion here, we are speaking of prohibiting marriage in and of itself, as an individual action separate from any wrong-doing in the person being prohibited.

I do believe that both EO and the OO also require thier Bishops to be abstain from marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy

 

[Polycarp1]

I do believe that both EO and the OO also require thier Bishops to be abstain from marriage.

I won't speak for the OO's; Anglian (an OO from East Anglia) is around and may be able to resolve this.

But it was made quite clear when the topic came up that:

a. EO men with vocations to the priesthood may marry before ordination, unless they have a call to monastic vows (which implies celibacy). Note the distinction: priesthood is a ministry, monasticism is living under a rule of life. You may be either without being the other, or may be both.

b. EO bishops are not ipso oficinis required to be celibate.

But

c. The depth of spirituality and scholarship they seek in their bishops are most often found in the celibate monastic priests, so overwhelmingly most often a bishop will be someone under monastic vows, and hence unmarried.

d. There have been exceptions to that general principle -- widowers and married men whose children are grown. They are rare but do exist.

 

[MamaZ]

I say let them marry for it is not good that man be alone..

 

[E.C.]

I do believe that both EO and the OO also require thier Bishops to be abstain from marriage.
Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh... I'll get to that in a second here.

I won't speak for the OO's; Anglian (an OO from East Anglia) is around and may be able to resolve this.

But it was made quite clear when the topic came up that:

a. EO men with vocations to the priesthood may marry before ordination, unless they have a call to monastic vows (which implies celibacy). Note the distinction: priesthood is a ministry, monasticism is living under a rule of life. You may be either without being the other, or may be both.

Correct. One may be a priest and a married man, but the married man status of life must be before ordination to the priesthood.

In the case of monastics, not all monastics are priests. Those that are priests are called 'heiromonks' or 'priest-monk'. I believe that some monastics eventually become priests at some point in their lives. Some priests become monastics after their wife has died.

b. EO bishops are not ipso oficinis required to be celibate.

Eh?

But

c. The depth of spirituality and scholarship they seek in their bishops are most often found in the celibate monastic priests, so overwhelmingly most often a bishop will be someone under monastic vows, and hence unmarried.

Typically, a bishop is found amongst the 'abbot of a monastery' crowd, but I do believe one of the canons state that a bishop must come from a monastic background. Whether that means he was an abbot of a monastery or a heiromonk or "just" a monk is up to God.

d. There have been exceptions to that general principle -- widowers and married men whose children are grown. They are rare but do exist.

Widowers whom have become bishops is not uncommon, but it is not common. It is kind of in the middle so to say.

But a bishop, I believe, must come from a monastic background. A married man can not, at least in the Orthodox Church, become a bishop unless his wife has fallen asleep and has taken monastic vows.

A few of the bishops in North America were once priests with wives. Then their wife died, they took monastic vows, lived the monastic life a while and eventually became bishops. In fact, quite a few of the bishops of the Russian Church on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution were once married men. I remember one particular martyr who was a bishop and worked to get his children out of the area so that the Bolsheviks would not use them as leverage against him.

There are and have been bishops who at one point were married, but there are no bishops who are presently married while being a bishop. Being a bishop and being married do not jive well. The Church in the early centuries realized this and thus one of the canons came about.

 

[MamaZ]

Being married is a copy of Christ and His church. So why would a priest be held not to be married? For in the very beginning God created them male and female and said it is not good for man to be alone. There are those who are gifted with Gods grace to be single. But it is a gift of the Lord just as some are gifted with curly hair and some are gifted with long fingers..

 

[Albion]

Being married is a copy of Christ and His church. So why would a priest be held not to be married? For in the very beginning God created them male and female and said it is not good for man to be alone. There are those who are gifted with Gods grace to be single. But it is a gift of the Lord just as some are gifted with curly hair and some are gifted with long fingers..

That's a reasonable point to make, and the answer probably is that the church took account of the various teachings in the Bible on this subject and made a decision. We seem now to be moving away from the "goes against Paul" idea and towards a purely "is it a good thing?" line of inquiry. Remember that I and others don't think that it's needed. That, however, is different from saying it violates some Biblical teaching.

 

[MamaZ]

That's a reasonable point to make, and the answer probably is that the church took account of the various teachings in the Bible on this subject and made a decision. We seem now to be moving away from the "goes against Paul" idea and towards a purely "is it a good thing?" line of inquiry. Remember that I and others don't think that it's needed. That, however, is different from saying it violates some Biblical teaching.

Well I believe that it does because in order to be a preist they are forbidden to marry. They say it is mans choice but in reality it is not mans choice but a law that one must follow after in order to become a priest. Paul says this is not of God..

 

[Polycarp1]

Well I believe that it does because in order to be a preist they are forbidden to marry. They say it is mans choice but in reality it is not mans choice but a law that one must follow after in order to become a priest. Paul says this is not of God..

Of course the point here is that "they" means only Latin-rite Roman Catholicism -- admittedly the largest single denomination, viewed secularly. Anglican priests are free to marry; Orthodox priests are commonly married (though the rule there is that married men may become priests, but unmarried priests are (without special permission) not free to marry or remarry -- the sense being that a man who takes a paternal, pastoral role over his congregation should not be 'wife-shopping' among them). And the rule among Eastern-rite Catholics is the same as for Orthodox.

Bottom line is that it's forbidden only in the largest single branch of Catholicism -- and even there dispensations exist. And, as noted, nobody is forbidden to marry period, they are simply forbidden to both marry and become priest.