Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

[Giuliano]

KJV Isaiah 58
6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

The above is anti slavery I believe.

It looks that way to me, too.

 

[Giuliano]

Another controversial topic is about the role of women in the Catholic Church. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon said they could be deacons.

The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

15 No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny. If after receiving ordination and spending some time in the ministry she despises God’s grace and gets married, such a person is to be anathematised along with her spouse.

The Bible also mentions a woman who was a deacon. It's not always translated that way, but the Greek word is "diakonos."

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant <deacon> of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Catholic theologians and historians will say this switch was a matter of practice only. I ask what made it advisable or necessary to say only men could be deacons? I think the switch to saying only men could become deacons shows a lack of respect for women.

Times have changed. Some women and even some men are annoyed by the current situation and pressuring the Pope to return to the original practice. If it is changed, it won't because the "male patriarchal" mind wanted to change it, it's because they're bending to pressure. There's also a priest shortage and those functions may change.

Study: US religious orders overwhelmingly back women deacons

ROME - A new survey has found that the majority of U.S. Catholic religious orders believe women should be allowed to serve as ordained deacons, lending support to an issue currently under study at the Vatican amid pressure for women to be given greater roles in the Church.

Seventy-seven percent of both male and female superiors in the U.S. believe such ordination is theoretically possible, and 72 percent think the Church should go ahead and authorize it, according to the study released Thursday by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University in Washington.

Only 45 percent, however, believe the Church will actually do it, the study found.

Deacons are ordained ministers, but not priests, though they can perform many of the same functions as priests. They preside at weddings, baptisms and funerals, and they can preach. They cannot celebrate Mass.

Currently, married men can serve as deacons. Women cannot, though historians say women served as deacons in the early Church.

Advocates for expanding the ministry to include women say doing so would provide women with a greater role in the ministry and governance of the Church, while also helping address the effects of the Catholic priest shortage in parts of the world by allowing women to perform some priestly functions.

Why did they stop having female deacons in the first place? It doesn't look to me that God was inspiring the people who decided to have only men as deacons.

 

[Davy]

Out of these councils came the official Catholic definitions of heresy. But again my interests are; what are the opinions of individuals, and that includes Catholics? The rulings of these councils were taken so seriously that excommunications and murders occurred. So there are some questions that arise for the individuals; Do you base heresy on some of the rulings of the councils? Or is heresy a disagreement between denominations? Is heresy a disagreement of one’s own beliefs? Then how serious are these heresies? How should an individual respond to what they consider a heresy? Or even if there is such a thing as heretical beliefs anymore?

My ancestors were French huguenots in 17th century Europe, which were the first French Protestants. The Catholic Church warred against them, and many of them were killed while others, like my ancestors, left France for Britain and then came to the Americas.

Britain was not Catholic, and by then the 1611 KJV Bible was given to the English speaking peoples. The early British Church did not recognize a Pope over them either (as also shown in the KJV translator's Letter To The Reader in the 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible).

So if you're going to bring up the history of the Catholic councils, then you ought to include a history of the early Church in Britain also, since the early Church in Britain, the Culdee Church, was active while Rome was still pagan.

 

[Grailhunter]

My ancestors were French huguenots in 17th century Europe, which were the first French Protestants. The Catholic Church warred against them, and many of them were killed while others, like my ancestors, left France for Britain and then came to the Americas.

Britain was not Catholic, and by then the 1611 KJV Bible was given to the English speaking peoples. The early British Church did not recognize a Pope over them either (as also shown in the KJV translator's Letter To The Reader in the 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible).

So if you're going to bring up the history of the Catholic councils, then you ought to include a history of the early Church in Britain also, since the early Church in Britain, the Culdee Church, was active while Rome was still pagan.

Cannot argue with that. Love the history of Britain. I can only do spoonfuls at a time....care to share some?

 

[Davy]

Cannot argue with that. Love the history of Britain. I can only do spoonfuls at a time....care to share some?

Can't share, all my research references are in storage.

 

[Helen]

Cannot argue with that. Love the history of Britain. I can only do spoonfuls at a time....care to share some?

Being born a Brit I will vote for more history.

Im reading this thread but, being - 'a bear of very little brain' ...it is pretty 'heady' for me....but I can at least read along.

 

[Grailhunter]

Being born a Brit I will vote for more history.

Im reading this thread but, being - 'a bear of very little brain' ...it is pretty 'heady' for me....but I can at least read along.

Any particular topic in British history....Helen?

 

[Davy]

Being born a Brit I will vote for more history.

Im reading this thread but, being - 'a bear of very little brain' ...it is pretty 'heady' for me....but I can at least read along.

Might look up some of Raymond E. Capt's books, since he was allowed to study many ancient records in Britain not allowed access to most of us.

 

[Helen]

Any particular topic in British history....Helen?

Oh no...I was only agreeing to your request to @Davy ... re British church history...ie to share what he knew...but it now looks like it is all stored 'on ice'.
So...our loss. LOL

 

[Helen]

Might look up some of Raymond E. Capt's books, since he was allowed to study many ancient records in Britain not allowed access to most of us.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Enoch111]

The early British Church did not recognize a Pope over them either...

Have you heard of the Oxford Movement and Cardinal Newman in the 19th century? There was a huge movement in the Church of England to go back to Rome, and its impact was quite serious. Today the Church of England is basically an apostate church.

 

[Davy]

Have you heard of the Oxford Movement and Cardinal Newman in the 19th century? There was a huge movement in the Church of England to go back to Rome, and its impact was quite serious. Today the Church of England is basically an apostate church.

Yeah, went through a lot of that history long ago. Before king James and the 1611 KJV Bible, there were many Protestant martyrs trying to get God's Holy Writ to the general public. The British Church was influenced by Rome quite a bit in those days (see Fox's Martyrs).

 

[Giuliano]

Being born a Brit I will vote for more history.

Im reading this thread but, being - 'a bear of very little brain' ...it is pretty 'heady' for me....but I can at least read along.

What kind of Bishops did they have when Henry VIII was reigning? How many refused to take an oath supporting his authority and undermining the Pope's. Only one dared to be so bold, Bishop John Fisher. All had allegedly been good Catholics up til then or at least pretended to be. To all appearances they piously recognized the Pope's authority; but when Henry put the screws on, they all flip flopped except one.

Were they fakes from the beginning who never really believed in the Pope's authority, or did they perjure their souls fearing for their lives? Either way, it doesn't make the English Bishops of the time look very good. Thomas Moore also would not be persuaded by threats.

St. John Fisher: Martyr and Model for Bishops

Neither More nor Fisher would take the oath — and so they were imprisoned in the Tower of London.

More was held for some time in relative comfort, but Fisher, stripped of title and office, was destitute and abandoned. He had never completely recovered from the attempted poisoning, and he was elderly and frail.

Bishop Fisher was not permitted access to the sacraments and suffered greatly. Nevertheless, he was still a pastor and preacher, writing A Spiritual Consolation and The Ways of Perfect Religion, for his half-sister Elizabeth, a nun at the Dartford Dominican Priory, and a Latin treatise De Necessitate Orandi (The Necessity of Prayer).

Pope Paul III proclaimed Bishop Fisher a cardinal while he was in the tower, hoping for some leniency, but the honor only infuriated Henry VIII more. He declared that when the cardinal’s hat arrived in England, Cardinal Fisher wouldn’t have a head on which to wear it. Henry VIII’s right-hand man, Richard Rich, who also betrayed Thomas More, tricked him into saying directly that Henry VIII couldn’t be — and wasn’t — the supreme head of the Church in England.

At Bishop Fisher’s trial, the guilty verdict and sentence were pre-ordained. He was prepared to die, having compared himself to St. John the Baptist in his willingness to suffer for the sake of defending holy matrimony.

On June 22, 1535, he was taken to Tower Hill for beheading. The witnesses were shocked when they saw how emaciated he was. He asked them for prayers and proclaimed the Te Deum in praise and thanksgiving, before death. His body was left on the scaffold through the night and then buried in St. Peter ad Vincula, one of the chapels in the Tower of London. His head was displayed on London Bridge and then thrown into the Thames River.

All that becomes more interesting if we realize that the Catholic Church didn't always have all the rules about marriage. In fact, people didn't get married in churches in the early church for centuries. No priest was needed either. It was not considered a Sacrament. I read once (in a hardcover book, and I forget the title) that pagans in France were used to going to the Temple of Diana, the goddess of fertility, to bless their marriage. Pagan converts to Christianity wanted a fertility blessing in Christian churches; and when they were refused to go inside, they would stand on the steps of the church (no priest either). Over time, things changed. Marriages were allowed in churches. Priests blessed people, and the Catholic Church started rule-making. Then later they said it was a Sacrament given to the church by Jesus. (That's official doctrine.) I can't get understand that. Did Jesus tell Peter his marriage was a fake and then marry Peter and his wife in a new Sacrament of Matrimony? If it was always a Sacrament, why didn't anyone know it? Why were people not marrying inside churches in the early church? My head reels.

I see it as resembling what the Jewish leader had done:

Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Well, Henry VIII rebelled at the burden. Maybe he was wrong to rebel; but the Anglican Church wouldn't exist today if the Catholic Church had not devised rules and more rules about marriage.

I believe marriage has always existed if God joined the two and made them one. A church wedding with clergy is fine but it's not necessary. A wedding license from the government is advisable for legal reasons, but that also is not necessary.

I think my favorite rule about marriage in the Catholic Church is the one that refers to Leviticus. Oh? It's in Leviticus and that still applies?
Remember Henry got a dispensation from that in order to marry Catherine of Aragon who had been married to his brother who died. That rule was there, but the Pope could say it didn't have to apply.

That rule got another King of England into hot water when William the Conqueror married Matilda of Flanders. They got a dispensation from the Pope after agreeing to build two churches. "You want to be married? Build two churches and then we'll pronounce you man and wife."

Matilda of Flanders - Wikipedia

Matilda, or Maud, was the daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders, and Adela, herself daughter of King Robert II of France.[1]

According to legend, when the Norman duke William the Bastard (later called the Conqueror) sent his representative to ask for Matilda's hand in marriage, she told the representative that she was far too high-born to consider marrying a bastard.[a] After hearing this response, William rode from Normandy to Bruges, found Matilda on her way to church, dragged her off her horse by her long braids, threw her down in the street in front of her flabbergasted attendants and rode off.

Another version of the story states that William rode to Matilda's father's house in Lille, threw her to the ground in her room (again, by her braids) and hit her (or violently battered her) before leaving. Naturally, Baldwin took offence at this; but, before they could draw swords, Matilda settled the matter[2] by refusing to marry anyone but William;[3] even a papal ban by Pope Leo IX at the Council of Reims on the grounds of consanguinity did not dissuade her. William and Matilda were married after a delay in c. 1051–2.[4] A papal dispensation was finally awarded in 1059 by Pope Nicholas II.[5] Lanfranc, at the time prior of Bec Abbey, negotiated the arrangement in Rome and it came only after William and Matilda agreed to found two churches as penance.

 

[brakelite]

My ancestors were French huguenots in 17th century Europe, which were the first French Protestants. The Catholic Church warred against them, and many of them were killed while others, like my ancestors, left France for Britain and then came to the Americas.

Britain was not Catholic, and by then the 1611 KJV Bible was given to the English speaking peoples. The early British Church did not recognize a Pope over them either (as also shown in the KJV translator's Letter To The Reader in the 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible).

So if you're going to bring up the history of the Catholic councils, then you ought to include a history of the early Church in Britain also, since the early Church in Britain, the Culdee Church, was active while Rome was still pagan.

LOL, we could be related. Many of those Huguenots changed their names when entering Britain to English/Welsh names to avert persecution, and sadly their initial identities are lost...there are many French blooded families throughout Britain and the Americas/Australia/NZ who have only a mouth to mouth record of the rich heritage. Oh, and DNA. To confirm my families connection and support the verbal history, being the oldest male in the line I was 'volunteered' to submit my sample to DNA testing. We expected Irish, Scot and Welsh to be the principle line with a smattering of English, and a trace of French if the stories were true. Turned out that the French was the strongest. Who knew?
And I agree. The Celtic church in Britain is given very little credence because it wasn't Catholic, and resisted for centuries any suggestion that they should submit to Papal authority. Celtic leaders such as Patrick, Dinooth, Aiden, Columba and Columbanus were never Catholics, but 'claimed' by the church later and given titles as 'saints'. In order to vindicate such moves, Rome had to invent all manner of false history and crazy miracles...Britain has never been comfortable under the Papal yoke, despite being blasphemously claimed as "Mary's dowry". When the local Celtic church refused papal approaches from their so-called missionaries (who were no doubt initially shocked at the existence of a thriving Christian church that pre-dated their arrival) the Catholics resorted to enlisting state led armies to destroy them and take over their possessions. Shameful history.

 

[GodsGrace]

Another controversial topic is about the role of women in the Catholic Church. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon said they could be deacons.

The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

15 No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny. If after receiving ordination and spending some time in the ministry she despises God’s grace and gets married, such a person is to be anathematised along with her spouse.

The Bible also mentions a woman who was a deacon. It's not always translated that way, but the Greek word is "diakonos."

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant <deacon> of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Catholic theologians and historians will say this switch was a matter of practice only. I ask what made it advisable or necessary to say only men could be deacons? I think the switch to saying only men could become deacons shows a lack of respect for women.

Times have changed. Some women and even some men are annoyed by the current situation and pressuring the Pope to return to the original practice. If it is changed, it won't because the "male patriarchal" mind wanted to change it, it's because they're bending to pressure. There's also a priest shortage and those functions may change.

Study: US religious orders overwhelmingly back women deacons

ROME - A new survey has found that the majority of U.S. Catholic religious orders believe women should be allowed to serve as ordained deacons, lending support to an issue currently under study at the Vatican amid pressure for women to be given greater roles in the Church.

Seventy-seven percent of both male and female superiors in the U.S. believe such ordination is theoretically possible, and 72 percent think the Church should go ahead and authorize it, according to the study released Thursday by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University in Washington.

Only 45 percent, however, believe the Church will actually do it, the study found.

Deacons are ordained ministers, but not priests, though they can perform many of the same functions as priests. They preside at weddings, baptisms and funerals, and they can preach. They cannot celebrate Mass.

Currently, married men can serve as deacons. Women cannot, though historians say women served as deacons in the early Church.

Advocates for expanding the ministry to include women say doing so would provide women with a greater role in the ministry and governance of the Church, while also helping address the effects of the Catholic priest shortage in parts of the world by allowing women to perform some priestly functions.

Why did they stop having female deacons in the first place? It doesn't look to me that God was inspiring the people who decided to have only men as deacons.

The CC does not believe that a woman can teach a man.
They're good for teaching children...but that's about it.
Some nuns do teach when it becomes necessary...but not on a usual basis.
For instance, here women are not allowed to do an official bible study.

Male Deacons that are married are not allowed to be remarried should their spouse die.

A Deacon cannot celebrate the Sacraments of confession or consecrate the host.

 

[Giuliano]

The CC does not believe that a woman can teach a man.
They're good for teaching children...but that's about it.
Some nuns do teach when it becomes necessary...but not on a usual basis.
For instance, here women are not allowed to do an official bible study.

Yet we see Priscilla teaching.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Male Deacons that are married are not allowed to be remarried should their spouse die.

A Deacon cannot celebrate the Sacraments of confession or consecrate the host.

I wish they would let their clergy marry before being ordained since I don't think single men should be looking for wives when they're priests or bishops. The ladies would be all a flutter trying to see who got to marry the prize. I think I also agree about not marrying again while a deacon.

I wish they insisted on the male clergy having a wife before promoting them so they could see that the man treats his wife and children well, understanding how to discipline others with wisdom and love. Instead they interpreted "one wife" as "no more than one." They said "one" could equal zero. Paul even tells why he thinks a bishop should have "one" wife.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

The Orthodox Church is closer to Paul's teaching. If someone is single when ordained, he must remain single. If he is married, he stays married. Peter did fine as Bishop of Rome with his wife, didn't he?

The Catholic Church believed they understood human psychology better than Paul. They encouraged celibacy, even insisted on it. The Catholic Church wouldn't have had so many scandals with priests and bishops if they had followed Paul's advice. Add to that, when their priests are always unmarried, gay men who know they don't want to marry women are attracted to the priesthood.

Paul gave sound advice, and anyone who cares about the welfare of the sheep would want to make sure the people that become shepherds show evidence of resembling shepherds. If anyone cares about the reputation of the Church, he would want to avoid scandal by looking for that evidence before entrusting them with a congregation. Surely I can see allowing some single men to be priests, but only with the greatest of caution. Some practices do need to change over time as culture changes; but love should steer decisions made about them. The evidence stares us in the face: Unmarried priests and bishops led to a lot of trouble. The current practice is unloving, so why not go back to Paul advised?

 

[GodsGrace]

Yet we see Priscilla teaching.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

I wish they would let their clergy marry before being ordained since I don't think single men should be looking for wives when they're priests or bishops. The ladies would be all a flutter trying to see who got to marry the prize. I think I also agree about not marrying again while a deacon.

I wish they insisted on the male clergy having a wife before promoting them so they could see that the man treats his wife and children well, understanding how to discipline others with wisdom and love. Instead they interpreted "one wife" as "no more than one." They said "one" could equal zero. Paul even tells why he thinks a bishop should have "one" wife.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

The Orthodox Church is closer to Paul's teaching. If someone is single when ordained, he must remain single. If he is married, he stays married. Peter did fine as Bishop of Rome with his wife, didn't he?

The Catholic Church believed they understood human psychology better than Paul. They encouraged celibacy, even insisted on it. The Catholic Church wouldn't have had so many scandals with priests and bishops if they had followed Paul's advice. Add to that, when their priests are always unmarried, gay men who know they don't want to marry women are attracted to the priesthood.

Paul gave sound advice, and anyone who cares about the welfare of the sheep would want to make sure the people that become shepherds show evidence of resembling shepherds. If anyone cares about the reputation of the Church, he would want to avoid scandal by looking for that evidence before entrusting them with a congregation. Surely I can see allowing some single men to be priests, but only with the greatest of caution. Some practices do need to change over time as culture changes; but love should steer decisions made about them. The evidence stares us in the face: Unmarried priests and bishops led to a lot of trouble. The current practice is unloving, so why not go back to Paul advised?

I agree with you but have a comment and a question.

The comment is that not all priests WANT to be married...so, as you've stated, this could be the exception that you speak of and is fine.

The question is: Why wouldn't a priest be able to marry AFTER being accepted to the Priesthood...ditto for Deacons. I really don't understand the why and it would be good to hear your opinion.

 

[Giuliano]

I agree with you but have a comment and a question.

The comment is that not all priests WANT to be married...so, as you've stated, this could be the exception that you speak of and is fine.

If someone is certain -- and I mean certain -- that he never wishes to marry, letting him be a priest would be safe and especially so if he demonstrated for a few years he was not going to be enticed by sex.

The question is: Why wouldn't a priest be able to marry AFTER being accepted to the Priesthood...ditto for Deacons. I really don't understand the why and it would be good to hear your opinion.

Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians 7 is long and you probably know it, so I won't quote it; but the Orthodox Church reads that to mean if called to serve in the church, be content to remain as you were when called.

Have you ever been in a church with a single pastor? Sometimes there's women competing with each other for his favor, each hoping to be his wife, not out of love for him but so they can feel important as the pastor's wife. Needless to say there's a temptation to premarital sex too; and the pastor may become embroiled in dubious romances that distract him from his duties. In a way it's like how a rich man has to deal with gold-diggers. Who loves him for himself and not for his money?

I'd say Augustine was haunted by his passions, wanting to be abstinent. I can find it now, but I think he kept diaries about how women looked in his church. Abstinent he remained, but it soured his views about women. If he saw a woman, especially a beautiful one, he blamed her for it. He would never admit any lust on his part. No, the woman to be blame. His hatred of women was fantastic as were some others'. (Note I do not grant him the title of saint.)

20 Vile Quotes Against Women By Religious Leaders From St. Augustine to Pat Robertson – Alternet.org

Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

If Augustine truly believed that, he was depriving a woman of attaining the image of God. Did he care?

Augustine and Aquinas taught that rape was a lesser sin than solitary satisfaction since rape might produce a baby while solitary satisfaction could not. Where's the love in that? I dropped Augustine's book when I read that. I felt I was being seduced by something unclean. He can be very convincing -- I felt my soul might be in peril if I kept reading. He might sly convince me of untrue things. The book literally fell out of my hands. I did have to pick it up to return to the library.

bensozia: Why Masturbation is Worse than Rape

This is actually the Catholic tradition, as expostulated by St. Augustine ("of all sins belonging to lust, that which is against nature is the worst") and given logical form by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. He covers this in Article 12, Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

Aquinas admits (Objection 1) that seduction and rape are contrary to charity, and that masturbation might seem like a less serious matter because it causes no injury to persons. But he rejects this view. Aquinas states his own logic most clearly in his Reply to Objection 1:
As the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature.So rape mainly hurts other people, but spilling seed on the ground offends God, which is much worse.

I think anyone who says he loves God and doesn't love others is a liar. If I had to choose between two options, I'd choose the one that harmed me more and others less.

What can I say? Genesis says the struggle will between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. As I see it, anyone who denigrates woman is leaning to the serpent mentality; and I doubt the temptation for men to blame women for their own shortcomings wouldn't have happened if priests were allowed to marry.

 

[farouk]

I agree with you but have a comment and a question.

The comment is that not all priests WANT to be married...so, as you've stated, this could be the exception that you speak of and is fine.

The question is: Why wouldn't a priest be able to marry AFTER being accepted to the Priesthood...ditto for Deacons. I really don't understand the why and it would be good to hear your opinion.

The question also arises, What is a priest in New Testament terms, given the work of Christ our great high priest as seen in Hebrews, for example.

 

[GodsGrace]

If someone is certain -- and I mean certain -- that he never wishes to marry, letting him be a priest would be safe and especially so if he demonstrated for a few years he was not going to be enticed by sex.

How can someone be certain? Life changes. I know one priest, he's about 73 or so, he's been kind of sorry the past few years that he never got married and has a family. I have a feeling most priests go thru this at some point in their life...you know, the road not taken.
Not enticed by sex? Is there such a thing? LOL.
I think they just have to learn to deal with it. And some don't and create problems. Mostly they get changed from one parish to another.

Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians 7 is long and you probably know it, so I won't quote it; but the Orthodox Church reads that to mean if called to serve in the church, be content to remain as you were when called.

I just read the entire chapter. There's so much there.
I see that it says that one should remain as he is when called...
It's just that the original, and catholic church did not practice this.
I do wonder what the ECFs thought about this....Will have to look this up and confirm it.

Have you ever been in a church with a single pastor? Sometimes there's women competing with each other for his favor, each hoping to be his wife, not out of love for him but so they can feel important as the pastor's wife. Needless to say there's a temptation to premarital sex too; and the pastor may become embroiled in dubious romances that distract him from his duties. In a way it's like how a rich man has to deal with gold-diggers. Who loves him for himself and not for his money?

I've seen this with priests. One priest that was assigned to my hometown (not where I live)
had to be transferred because of one particular woman and she was MARRIED with a child.
Pretty dumb move on her part...the town is now without a priest, or I should say they share one with 5 or 6 other parishes. Good point about romances...

I'd say Augustine was haunted by his passions, wanting to be abstinent. I can find it now, but I think he kept diaries about how women looked in his church. Abstinent he remained, but it soured his views about women. If he saw a woman, especially a beautiful one, he blamed her for it. He would never admit any lust on his part. No, the woman to be blame. His hatred of women was fantastic as were some others'. (Note I do not grant him the title of saint.)

20 Vile Quotes Against Women By Religious Leaders From St. Augustine to Pat Robertson – Alternet.org

Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

If Augustine truly believed that, he was depriving a woman of attaining the image of God. Did he care?

Augustine and Aquinas taught that rape was a lesser sin than solitary satisfaction since rape might produce a baby while solitary satisfaction could not. Where's the love in that? I dropped Augustine's book when I read that. I felt I was being seduced by something unclean. He can be very convincing -- I felt my soul might be in peril if I kept reading. He might sly convince me of untrue things. The book literally fell out of my hands. I did have to pick it up to return to the library.

bensozia: Why Masturbation is Worse than Rape

This is actually the Catholic tradition, as expostulated by St. Augustine ("of all sins belonging to lust, that which is against nature is the worst") and given logical form by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. He covers this in Article 12, Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

Aquinas admits (Objection 1) that seduction and rape are contrary to charity, and that masturbation might seem like a less serious matter because it causes no injury to persons. But he rejects this view. Aquinas states his own logic most clearly in his Reply to Objection 1:
As the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature.So rape mainly hurts other people, but spilling seed on the ground offends God, which is much worse.

I think anyone who says he loves God and doesn't love others is a liar. If I had to choose between two options, I'd choose the one that harmed me more and others less.

I'm shocked about Aquinas....I never heard or read this.
As to Augustine, I've never liked him and have never understood why the church of that time was so enamored of him. Some time ago, recently, I came to believe that it might be because he was so good at debating and kept many heresies out of the church.

Ive always said the cc became lost after 325AD.

What can I say? Genesis says the struggle will between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. As I see it, anyone who denigrates woman is leaning to the serpent mentality; and I doubt the temptation for men to blame women for their own shortcomings wouldn't have happened if priests were allowed to marry.

The seed of the woman....
It makes the woman be very important doesn't it?
Woman is the maker of new life and carries it to term and keeps the human race going.
OTOH, she is the helpmate of man....
seems to me that there should be an extreme amount of respect between the two.